From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you think about this article?

Contents 1 Cultural Bias 1.1 Article Destruction 1.2 Neutrality 1.3 Statistics 1.4 Henry VIII wanted a *divorce* ? 1.5 recent Japan deletions 1.6 Removed paragraph 1.7 This article is a mess 1.8 Document Specimens 1.9 Bias? 1.10 Still seems biased 1.11 Oral and Anal Divorce 1.12 References 1.13 Getting a divorce from another country & the law and procedure in countries that may be called "divorce mills" by some 1.14 Visitation violations 1.15 Portal needed 1.16 Divorce 1.17 Jesus and the Woman with Five Husbands and One Non-husband 1.18 Sentence deleted 1.19 Religious/cultural attitudes to divorce 1.20 Close Relationships template 1.21 No-fault divorce not well defined here 1.22 Section "Who Initiates divorce?" 1.23 Still a mess 1.24 Divorce rate statistics 1.25 A useful external link 1.26 Last section in religion and divorce clearly biased 1.27 Jesus rant, and text, and resulting talk-page detrium, is bad. 1.28 Split out 1.29 "Make no mistake.." 1.30 "Statistics" section appears biased (pro divorce) - Also excessive advertising of divorce website 1.31 Add a list of divorced people? 1.32 Divorce vs. Marital Discord 1.33 Child divorces Parents 1.34 Condonation, Connivance, Provocation and Collusion 1.35 This article is hopeless 1.36 Causes 1.37 EU 1.38 parental rights 1.39 Request a link 1.40 Types of Divorce: Responsible Divorce 1.41 Small Dick? 1.42 Daffy Duck's Divorce 1.43 Divorce Avoidance Techniques? 1.44 America

[edit] Cultural Bias

the whole article seems to have a US bias, like in the types of divorce section. It cites what states have this type of divorce but no mention is made of what countries. As a non-American this strikes me as centring on America for an issue which is not solely american. (Pookakitty (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Article Destruction

Someone, identified only by their IP address, deleted enormous chunks of this article. I have reverted the changes. This article should probably be cleaned up, but not by deleting half the article on a whim. Such major changes should be discussed first. My apologies to those who have made changes since the last decent copy of this article. --God's Webmaster 02:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

In complete agreement about the "this article is a total mess." IMHO it has serious neutrality problems as well (I got the distinct feeling the article had been written by a recently divorced father). As such, I've added tags to both

The page is a bit schitzoid I think, less than un-neutral, with some bits that lean one way, and some bits the other, some bits that look like they need substantiation, and some bits that need cropping, and mostly looking like it needs a good edit.--Fish-man 19:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I hate the following sentance from the lead section and want to fix it because it definitely has a point of view that sounds more like opinion, so I am going to post it here and look for proposed changes: In addition, acceptance of the single-parent family has resulted in many women deciding to have children outside marriage as there is little remaining social stigma attached to unwed mothers.

My issues:

• First, not sure how much more accepted single parent families are nowadays.
• Second, not sure this is a primary reason for increased single-parenthood.
• Third, can we actually put some numbers on increased single-parenthood, and mince out how many of these were by choice?

Clearly single parenthood is up, and I think we can substantiate that, and our society has adapted a little to single parent families. Can we say more than that?--Fish-man 15:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Redisca has done a Huge amount of work on this page, and I think we are much improved. So I have removed the Neutrality tag. If someone things it needs to be re-added, then poke it back on and we can discuss, but if anything, I think the male pov is under-represented, and if we are careful going forward, I think we will be OK. We still need more substantiating statistics, and those are available... I may be able to put some of those in some time soon--Fish-man 20:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that the discussion of single parent families is so biased in (at least) the USA that it may be impossible to get a neutral viewpoint. Discussions of crime or criminals often include the information that the criminal grew up in a single parent family( if, indeed, that is the case). Crime is very commonly attributed to the criminal being raised in a single parent family. This society has a very different attitude toward a single parent family in which one of the parents has died, a single parent family as the result of divorce, and a single parent family in which the parent was never married. A single parent family can also be the result of a single person adopting a child or children. Is a widowed grandparent raising grandchildren a single parent? Are the children of a married couple who are not living together because one of the parents is deployed as a soldier living in a single parent family? We do not seem to have a uniform definition of "single parent family." This is serious problem for anyone who is labeled a single parent. Any behavorial abnormality in the children of the single parent is commonly assumed to be caused by the fact that there are not two parents. Unless we are able to figure out how to discuss (and live with) variations in family structure without bias, I think that the issue should be deleted from the article on divorce. Or, perhaps mentioned only to clarify that it is a controversial issue about which we do not seem to have unbiased statistics. Antigone2 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

--- Does anyone have any statistics for marriage and divorce. These generalizations do not look very precise. Alex756

How's that for a start on a statistics section? US only so far. --zandperl 14:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've gone through the stats section and revised and condensed it, trying to weed it down to relevant conclusions directly supported by the data. (Much of what was there when I found it misinterpreted the data or made claims far beyond what the data linked to supported; in some cases because someone apparently had an axe to grind.) I did try to preserve the links to relevant external studies, though, and tried to be more precise about what they actually said. (I added a study of two as well to fill in some gaps.)

This did eliminate a couple of potentially relevant numbers, such as how often the wife or the husband got custody of children. But I didn't see any solid data for them at a national level in the studies that were cited. If someone finds some solid, reliable stats from studies that *directly* speak to this issue, please add them. -- 130.91.116.49, 08 Apr 2005

---

What's an "Anglo-American" jurisdiction? Sounds like a South African company (see Harry Oppenheimer). Tiles 05:24 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Don't think English speaking is a good change, Indian might be considered English speaking and I don't think that the divorce trends there are similar to Anglo American countries (US Canada and United Kingdom). The term Anglo-American is used when discussing common law systems (though some like Indian are perhaps mixed systems as India does incorporate Hindu law into its jurisprudence). How 'bout western English speaking? Alex756

---

I'm not too concerned. I just thought that Anglo American was supposed to mean "English speaking". I note the use of commonwealth which goes well beyond the western English speaking world.

BTW is the stuff about France correct? I find it hard to believe that people with children avoid marriage or that French law was influenced by the Catholic church (Ireland I could believe).Tiles 04:56 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Sure, it sounds questionable. I removed a part "In countries such as France, people who have romantic relationships or children tend to avoid marriage, thus, divorce rate has remained low." I wrote this simply from my memory. Maybe we can put it again after we or anyone can show good evidence. -- Taku 05:15 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the world has changed much in the twentieth century. There was a famous case that is often quoted in French private international law treatises dealing with the concept fraude à la loi -- it was known as the Princess Bauffremont affair decided by the Cour de cassation [Civ. 18 mars 1878, S.78.1.193 (note Labbé)]. She obtained citizenship in Germany for the purpose of obtaining a divorce there and then remarried returning to France. (I think it was some kind of inheritance issue) The validity of her remarriage was called into question as divorce was not recognized in France, her remarriage was declared null as a fraude à la loi. Similar things happened in common law jurisdictions when people left to go to another country (or state) to get divorced because it was illegal in their country (the so called quickie Dominican divorce was an example of this). In common law conflict of laws it is known as evasion of the law. Alex756 05:23 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems pretty conclusive on the legal issue. I agree that we should park the social issue here until there is more evidence. Tiles 05:38 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Henry VIII wanted a *divorce* ?

Didn't Henry VIII want an annulment, not a divorce ? Especially as the sentence says he wanted it on the grounds of affinity -- I don't know that it makes any sense to say he wanted a divorce on the grounds of affinity.

Henry married Catherine of Aragon after her first husband -- his older brother -- died. Catherine claimed that she had never consummated her first marriage. If she had, then Henry would have considered marrying her himself to be akin to incest.

Years later, Henry figured that Catherine must have lied about never consummating their marriage. He asked the Pope for an annulment. He only sought divorce after he couldn't get one. Darkfrog24 16:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent Japan deletions

The comment on the Aug 31 edit was quite biased. Im not sure why it is relevant whether a contributor is having a custody problem in japan or not, nor how FWBOarticle would know whether that is true. Was the information deleted inaccurate, off topic, or biased? If not, which is my view, perhaps it should stay. Instead of deleting relevant information, I have referred to the site indicated and rewritten the section, as would have been a better way to edit it in the first place. If you (FWBOarticle) don't like the presentation, go ahead and fix it up in a more neutral manner. If you (FWBOarticle) disagree with the content, say so, and update it with more accurate content or in a more unbiased way. Simply deleting it implies that you, (FWBOarticle) are promoting an agenda and simply deleting information you do not like. Lets try to be more objective here, ok?

Ill try to find some statistics on divorce in Japan. Should be around since its a hot topic these days, with the rate going way up in recent years.

Jpnwatch Aug 31, 2004.

There is nothing wrong with presenting fact thought sticking to topic is prefered. Only problem is your source. It help if you can provide citation not from agenda site. You have to find two souce. One is to say some country doesn't recognise Japanese divorce. The other is to show that the reason for this non recognition is due to problem with Japanese divorce procedure. FWBOarticle 08:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and it help if you can provide source for the case of forgery.

I have also removed links. However, I have no objection for listing those links as external. In Wikipedia, that is much prefered way as some external links disappear afterward. FWBOarticle 08:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Certainly some content depends on the subject knowledge of contributors. And in such cases, it may be equally your responsibility to disprove things you don't agree with, based on your own expertise. This "agenda site" has unique information not found elsewhere, and quite honestly, it would help if you would read thru the site before challenging issues. At some point you need to trust the expertise of the people who put that site together. That said, here are several references that come up in a quick google search that may answer some of your concerns:

Divorce By Mutual Consent not accepted by all countries

• http://www.city.kamogawa.chiba.jp/english/for%20homepage/web%20version%20of%20pamphlet2.pdf

• http://www.kiea.jp/Divorce.html

Forging signatures on divorce forms and anti-divorce form

• http://www.nic-nagoya.or.jp/english/survivaltip/survival_tips_0201.htm

• http://www.jca.apc.org/migrant-net/English/q_and_a/qa_marriage_e.html

And here is a reference to someone who proved a forged signature in court. The person mentioned in the article is the founder of another organization and his case is well know. Youcan contact this organization to get in touch with him personally. crcjapan.com

• http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20001213b2.htm

So Im going to put back the original information. If you dont like it, please find some of your own evidence to disprove it before making further edits.

And finally, if you disapprove of external links in the text, you should be consistent. There are quite a few other external links in there also. I speculate that you did not removethem also since they do not appear to be on your "agenda." A constructive way to approach your concern would be to remove ALL external links and rewrite them appropriately in the external links section. Since I am following the existing format in this article, Ill leave that task up to you.

Ah, I have no problem with the facts that forgery occurs in Japan or elsewhere. Problem with your sentence is that you try to link that with the fact that particular type of divorce in Japan is not recognised internationally. This you fail to provide any source except your speculation. Wikipedia is not really a place to advance individual POV. Rather it is place to introduce readers to various general opinion with proper attribution. Also, it is you who assert certain existence of fact. Burden of proof is on you not on me. As of me deleting link to your web page. I actually have no objection for your web page and information it provide. Just that it is much better if it is separated as external links as reference. Oh, for you not being able see your kids, that I sympathise. FWBOarticle 10:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As of external links, firstly it is generally discouraged however it is not explicitly prohibited. It is usuall being let off when it is linked to stable site such as BBC or government website. Small website is considered much less reliable and that is why it is better to be listed as separate link. However I have no objection for the link to be listed immediately after the section rather than at the bottom of the page. FWBOarticle 10:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And one more thing, trying to promote particular website is not something which is encouraged. FWBOarticle 10:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph

Contributed on September 10:

One cause considered, while not conclusive, arises from studies[1] described in Kristen O'Hara's book Sex as Nature Intended It. The book explains that relationships, which rely on strong levels of intimacy, may fail in part due to the physical effects of circumcision on sexual intercourse. Described in detail by Ronald Goldman's work [2], divorce rates in various nations are compared and strongly linked to male circumcision rates just 25 years prior. O'Hara's book describes that, in the case of circumcised intercourse, levels of satisfaction may fall over the years of marriage. This effect may have been known as early as the 12th century, as described by the philosopher Moses Maimonides. Among other factors, this factor may contribute to some couples divorcing due to loss of sexual fulfillment in one or both spouses.

Circumcision as a cause for divorce? That explains why divorce rates are so high, I suppose.  :-) --Ardonik.talk()^* 15:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Some people believe loss of fulfillment contributes to divorce (not the sole cause as you imply). The US is quite high in both statistics. If you would bother to read the books mentioned, they are only one perspective with clear historical references. You are welcome to add more to the article if you wish. I am not against the theory that there is no connection, but I believe both sides have merit. DanP 16:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course you do. For you, circumcision is one of the world's great evils, and you'll seize any chance to denigrate it.
If a scientific study can provide evidence of a positive correlation between circumcision and divorce rates, adding a mention and a cite will be fine, but all you have provided is a link to an informal survey. A subsection in Genital Integrity entitled ==Circumcision and divorce== or ==Societal impact of circumcision== would in my opinion be more suitable for this.
No more free rides, DanP. The circumcision wars are over. --Ardonik.talk()^*

I respectfully disagree. Goldman's work was also mentioned, which I would hope you'd find time to read, even if you disagree with it. Scientific studies of divorce, eh? That's a pretty tough standard to explain human relationships. I would ask you to replace this particular paragraph though, as it's one matter which I am very familiar. It was never presented as an absolute statement of scientific fact. DanP 22:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We need tough standards! Without them we get POV. Speculation without any evidence that circumcision has any effect on divorce has no place in this article. I don't believe both sides have merit at all. i don't see any merit whatsoever in the "circumcision causes divorce" argument. The US is also quite high on gun ownership. If I were to put forward the 'theory' that gun ownership causes divorce should it go in the article? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't say the merit was irrefutable, but I have seen more than one relationship fall apart. To go extreme with forcing a tough standard would require deleting most of the article. Take the statement: "In some countries, women need to wait longer than men before remarrying to avoid confusion about paternity." That is presented with zero scientific evidence as to paternity being the reason. The article is full of what one person thinks and what another might do. NPOV only asserts that nobody is absolutely right in their chosen view, and Goldman's book is more than a tiny shred of evidence that the opinion exists. If there is a way to "water down" my paragraph to be NPOV, saying other people believe this theory is wrong or sheer coincidence, please do so without just deleting the whole paragraph. Regarding gun ownership, many people believe it's tied to crime rates. I don't believe that at all and find it an unjustified tactic, but the gun politics article clearly says some believe "that gun control legislation may reduce violent crime". It's just a statement of perspectives that exist, and I do not judge that. I support such statements being in Wikipedia, despite my strong disagreement with the underlying assertion, because they are presented as a "sociological theory" and no more. DanP 16:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But there is some evidence to back those claims up. The violent crimes rates of the UK can be compared to that of the US. Now since the UK and the US are broadly similar societies, with similar non violent crime rates then it is reasonable to conclude that that differences in violent crime rates are due to different gun regulations. I'm pretty sure this comparision has actually been done but i dont know the actual results, and anyway i don't want to stray too far off topic. As far as I am aware, there have been no actual comparisions of divorce rates between similar groups of men where one group were circumcised and the other not. As far as I can tell the 'theory' is out and out speculation, with no evidence whatsoever. As such it should not go into the article. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then please explain why the majority of the divorce article goes without that standard? The vast majority is pure speculation, including the paragraph prior to the disputed one which I, in fact, entered. The disputed paragraph was listed with repeated evidence, both historical and contemporary, with regard to this viewpoint. For the guns issue, no it's not reasonable to make that leap - it's POV. One counterexample POV is that violent crime has suddenly gone up in many places where guns were restricted, and that violent crimes prevented by guns never get counted in official reports. I really don't care who is "right" on that, because both sides have explained their completely unproven conclusions in Wikipedia. Encouraging multiple perspectives is a standard NPOV has. Deleting the disputed paragraph in this article because my evidence perceived as weak, yet permitting the prior paragraph which I submitted with zero evidence, is rather POV isn't it? I think divorce is linked enough to long-term fulfillment in the bedroom. At least it is in some people's minds, and I think that merits some attention here. Even if circumcision is not specifically mentioned, we do not live in a society where sex and divorce are so separate that it requires empirical data to link them. Maybe we need a discussion about the POV "women are generally the financial victims of divorce" under the Social and psychological issues section of this article. Not one shred of evidence or neutrality there. But I didn't just delete it. DanP 18:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a mess

Hello:

Is it just me or is this article a mess?

Unfortunately I don't have the time or energy to do some research on my own on divorce law and clean this mess up. My specialty isn't family law.

It seems like we have a whole bunch of laypeople working on this article, including several pissed-off divorced fathers, and relatively few law-trained people.

I suspect the reason no family law people have bothered to clean this up is because they are too busy dealing with their crazy clients. Family law is well-known among lawyers as the most stressful type of law. Most legal disputes can be reduced to awards of money, but it's hard to do that with kids or with property that may be of great sentimental value to both spouses.

--Coolcaesar 08:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the write-ups on other countries, but the US section is terrible. The author obviously knows very little about law and wrote, it seems, from his own limited experiences and convictions. First of all, the ABA is a non-governmental organization, which does not have the power to enact statutes, overhaul courts, or otherwise "introduce" anything. It can and does engage in lobbying, but so do numerous other groups. The jumbled statement about the supposed dealings between the ABA and the NAWL is mystifying.

Second, not all states delegate divorce proceedings to "Family Law section in the courts". New York, for example, has Family Court, but it is the Supreme Court which maintains jurisdiction over divorces. In any event, the article creates a vague impression that family courts serve special interests, but does not explain their significance.

Third, the use of legal terminology and the discussion of legal concepts in this section of the article is hopelessly muddled and inaccurate. There is an apparent confusion, for example, between divorce and separation; between divorce-for-fault and covenant marriage; and between the dissolution of marriage and collateral issues. It is worth noting that some states provide for neither no-fault divorce nor covenant marriage. I am surprised and dismayed that, knowing as little as he does about divorce, the author had the gall to characterize certain proceedings, outcomes, etc. as "typical".

I think the US section needs to be completely re-written by someone who actually possesses legal knowledge and expertise.--Redisca 22:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's been more than eight months and this article is still a mess. Well, I'm too busy to clean this up (I'm in the midst of a massive rewrite of Lawyer at the moment). --Coolcaesar 09:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Six more months and this article is as bad as ever. So it's been 14 months since my first note above. I'm still too busy with Lawyer since the key issue with the failed featured article nomination was the lack of history of the profession. So I'm looking for relevant sources on that issue, and I'm busy with work, etc. Guess this confirms my suspicion that everyone in family law is just too busy to help write a decent article on their biggest source of business! --Coolcaesar 08:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Document Specimens

The document specimens on the page are, I believe, ludicrous fakes. No document articulating the rights of parties to litigation would be handwritten with scribbles and crossed-out items such as these. The existence of what may be a clerk stamp is not sufficient to convince me.

Additionally, there are substantial privacy violations if, contrary to my suspicion, the documents are indeed genuine. There are in several jurisdictions substantial limitations on the release of records relating to child custody matters.

I think the documents should be removed in favor of neutral specimen documents which might be available through court websites.

I regret to inform you that you are wrong about the handwriting and scribbles. There are some judges that require that court orders, judgements be written up in their presence longhand while the attorney(s) are present to expedite the process - especially, I believe, in orders for seizure of property and so on, where time is of the essence. I have in my posession one such order, which I cannot share for privacy reasons. The particular family judge in question had all her judgements done in court, by hand, in front of her.--Fish-man 19:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Displaying unredacted court documents is clearly a problem. In most US jurisdictions, records of divorce and custody proceedings are confindential and cannot be publicized without the consent of both ex-spouses (and, where the identity of a minor is an issue, even that may not be enough). In the documents shown in the article, the names are clearly visible. Apart from being the author's pathetic attempt at a revenge of some sort (which, of course, violates the site's neutrality rules), it is also very unethical, and very likely illegal, as well.--Redisca 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I am contacting Mark about the documents and attempting to redact personal names, exact dates, docket numbers and the like. They have already been reviewed for deletion once, and apparently passed muster. I note that some information (numbers, family names) has already been redacted. These are apparently the uploader's own orders. Your comment about the repression of this information without consent is interesting and could add to this page when it gets rewritten. Can you provide any further citations on that? And please, no personal invective. In my humble opinion 'Pathetic' is uncalled for, especially in reference to someone who apparently is now a very occasional visitor in his own house.--Fish-man 17:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

IMO, the filled-out forms don't really add much to the article, especially to the intro where they appear. Can we agree to delete them? I searched for some online blank forms. There's a government site at http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/ssc/forms/fc_drda8.asp with forms for requesting a divorce, and with a blank decree. How about swapping those in, thus solving most of the issues raised above (since the forms are blank)? Sderose 14:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

Someone just added a "bias" flag to section 5 (medical and sociological effects). Oddly, they have posted nothing here about why. They also used only a numeric IP address, and didn't give a comment with their edit. Since nearly every claim in that section has a specific citation, and given that the anonymous editor hasn't mentioned any particulars or suggestd any way to reduce whatever bias they perceive, it seems to me we should either figure out what they mean and address it, or else delete the bias flag. As is, it looks like somebody just doesn't *like* the cited facts; by itself that doesn't make the article biased. Sderose 15:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't read the mind of whoever orignally complained, but I noticed a good deal of bias in that section, too. The bias comes from the one-sided quoting of studies without mentioning their flaws. The silencing of criticism hides the fact that many of these studies suffer from the problem of distinguishing causation from correlation. In particular, what they take as consequences of divorce are often causes.

Take the example of children of divorce being more willing to get divorced. This is explicitly stated as a consequence of divorce, yet it can be more simply accounted for. Religiously and socially conservative parents are less likely to divorce, no matter how bad their marriage is, and are more likely to teach this die-hard attitude to their children. More liberal parents — including those who never divorce — are instead more likely to view divorce as an acceptable solution if the marriage is beyond saving. Therefore, the children of divorce represent a self-selected sample, not a random one.

Now, this isn't my OR, it's what's been written by critics over and over again. The only question is why there's no mention of this here. Alienus 06:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still seems biased

Don't get me wrong. I completely agree with the opinion that males are underrepresented and often-mistreated when it comes to child custody on a variety of levels, but here I am trying to write a paper to that effect, and I can't use wikipedia as a reference, because the quotes are just _TOO_ good. And so are some of the external links. I can't use this stuff without undermining my own credibility, because this article has undermined it's own credibility. It's doing a good thing, educating and disseminating information on how we can improve this facet of society. But. Well. It still aint neutral. --134.114.183.163 16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oral and Anal Divorce

212.138.113.12 added the following text:

Sexual behavior seems to have an affect on the rate of divorce cases. Although sexual behavior of basic biological importance, it also has central social importance. A study was conducted in 1991 investigating the relationship between sexual behavior and divorce. Of the two samples selected 90% of divorced respondent couples had oral and anal sex as part of sexual intercourse on a regular basis, while only 20% of married couples interviewed had both on regular basis. It was concluded that there is a rapport between sexual behavior and the tendency to have a divorce.

I removed it for a few reasons. 1) It lacks citation. Unnamed studies are worthless, because anyone can invent them. 2) It's bad sociology. I bet that people who have anal and oral sex, and are willing to admit to it, are less likely to be social conservatives. Social conservatives are less likely to see divorce as an acceptable option, even when the marriage is a mess. In short, the correlation in no way suggests causality. (unsigned by Alienus)

• User:212.138.113.12's 07:35, 14 December 2005 edit was made from an IP now blocked as an open proxy, and apparently at least suspected as such prior to those edits. This does not prove the intention to place false information, but IMO it should arouse suspicion.

I'm also pretty sure that using "rapport" to describe either correlation or causation is not something that stems from reading competent marital research. It sounds more like what i'd expect of the kind of faith-based research that goes thru professional research articles looking for one statistic that can be twisted as this one presumably is, and cites it as supposed evidence of what one's medieval upbringing advocates, while ignoring the conclusions to the contrary that are stated in the end as result of professional analysis of all of the data.

But that aside, my impression is that a single behavioral variables that can split a population into groups that differ by 70 %age points as to another behavioral variable, without everyone saying, "Well, duh, you had to do research to figure that out?" are very few and far between. Deception, at least to the extent of deliberate distortion, is my guess. (Look for religious-right propaganda that cites WP as source of those numbers that were in main-namespace for 14 hours, and you'll have an idea of what domain the proxy was concealing.) And i've got a baseball cap that i'm setting aside for a snack on the day when that IP's paragraph is verified as based on a reputably peer-reviewed article that fails to explain the result away.
--Jerzy•t 16:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Can we cut down on the references. There are so many that they are no longer useful. Wikipedia is not a bibliography or a list of links. If someone wants to save them, move them to Wikisource. If I dont hear complaints. I will start paring them down to general reference works on divorce. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting a divorce from another country & the law and procedure in countries that may be called "divorce mills" by some

Something that has become more popular in the United States; I have added information about this as I have recently gone through a divorce and thoroughly investigated all my options. It's one of my first contributions to this site, so let me know if there are any serious problems with it. --Nephalim 01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Information on the specifics on the laws of both contested and uncontested divorces in Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic would be helpful forDivorces obtained by US couples in a different country or jurisdiction, and also for Divorce mill Nephalim 11:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visitation violations

I noticed this statement:

Currently in the US, federal law makes non-payment of child support a felony, whereas refusal to honor court-ordered visitation decision is not, and seldom results in any punishment or compulsion to change

I appreciate that refusal to honour court-ordered visitation is generally treated less seriously than non-payment of child support but I wonder if it's realy true it seldom results in any punishment or compulsion to change (although of course one violation of a visitation order is unlikely to cause as much damage as one violation of child support can). AFAIK (I'm not an American or a legal expert) it can be considered contempt of court and although the person who's visitation rights are violated probably obtains little help from the police and it might take quite a lot of time and money, I suspect in most cases if they are able and willing to put in the money and time to take the issue to court it will result in at least some compulsion to change. I'm not saying this is fair, simply pointing out that the statement there is seldom any punishment or complusion to change is probably misleading as currently written Nil Einne 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal needed

This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law - - Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Divorce matters and news can be seen on http://www.insidedivorce.com

[edit] Divorce

I notice the line "though the Qur'an itself mentioned no particular limit." has been removed. Any chance of an explanation? Is divorce specifcally mentioned in the Qur'an, or not, or is it just that the piece of information is considered irrelevant? Gretnagod 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I removed that sentence. Divorce is mentioned in the Qur'an. The statement here refers to the number of wives a man can have. I'm not sure about whether this is mentioned in the Qur'an or not but the removed line when taken with the rest of the sentence (A man may have up to four wives under Sharia law, (though the Qur'an itself mentioned no particular limit)), conveys the idea that the Qur'an is the only source from which the Sharia is derived. That's factually incorrect. Adding the sentence doesn't give any additional information but might cause some misunderstanding. Therefore it is at best irrelevant. --Nkv 15:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you need divorce help and advice http://www.insidedivorce.com

[edit] Jesus and the Woman with Five Husbands and One Non-husband

I am removing this part: "It was also shown the lack of a marriage is not a problem for Jesus, as shown in John 4.18-19 that Jesus don't have any problem of a woman without a husband cohabitating with a man who is not her husband."

Here's why. The scriptures cited demonstrate that Jesus knew of her remarriages and cohibatation. They do not indicate that he "don't have any problem of a woman ... cohabitating with a man who is not her husband." He merely showed the woman, who was a stranger to him, that he had personal knowledge of her life, which no ordinary stranger would have. He later claimed to her to be the messiah sought by both the Jews and the Samaritans (verse 26). Thus, his display to her of spiritual power, by demonstrating knowledge of her which no ordinary stranger could have, backs up that claim.

Thus, the statement is blatantly false and is being deleted. --BPMoldovan 03:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting into a protracted debate on religion or cohabitation here. However, my personal discussion page has some further thoughts on this subject, on the off chance that anyone's interested.--BPMoldovan 04:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"...that Jesus don't have any problem of a woman without a husband..." He don't, do he? Jesus does have a problem with poor grammar and writing skills in Wikipedia and for that you will burn in literacy Hell. Greenbomb101 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence deleted

I deleted this sentence:

Furthermore, the 50/50 split holds even if the richer spouse commits adultery or iniates the divorce even though arguably the richer spouse should equally get less in these cases if they are grounds to reduce the percentage for poorer spouse.

on the grounds that it seems POV, but I do think it may make a valid point (I'm not entirely sure what it's saying) and would like to see it returned if anyone can properly revise it. Emmett5 04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's just get over the situation. You can delete, ignore, or do whatever you have to, to change divorces and any situation that falls into place. Everything is still the same. Case closed.

[edit] Religious/cultural attitudes to divorce

I am editing this section to make it cleaner and less of a "bully pulpit" for one interpretation, but rather stick to what the Scripture says on the subject. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a personal website.--God's Webmaster 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This section was "messed up" again. I cleaned it up, and also removed the "cleanup" tag as it is no longer needed. The other section should not be reverted back; it has serious POV and neutrality problems. --God's Webmaster 00:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

All right; after having my cleanup reverted again, I am looking for input. Does anybody have objections to the cleanup I had done? Ohnoitsjamie called the current information "sourced material". I disagree -- there are no references as to the "Any Cause" divorce interpretation. I see no reason to promote one particular, minority viewpoint (I'd never heard of this one before) on divorce as the major Christian viewpoint. As I said before, this article should not be a bully pulpit. I also think this section should be marked as having neutrality problems. If nobody raises any objections, I will put back my edits. Please speak up if you have problems with editing what's there now. --God's Webmaster 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the diff in question. I agree that the section I restored needs some work, but I think your replacement of that section with an decidedly singular perspective ignores the fact that there are different interpretations. Perhaps other editors who are better-versed (no pun intended!) in the Bible could chime in? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. To avoid inadvertently inserting original research (in violation of WP:NOR) in such a difficult matter of textual interpretation, it would be better to cite to analyses published by theologians from several denominations. --Coolcaesar 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one has helped out; in fact, it's even worse now. I think it would be best to take it back to what it was about six months ago, prior to the insertion of the section beginning "Recent research shows...". At least that would be better than the mess that is there now. In fact, just about anything shorter would be better than what's there now. God's Webmaster 20:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I just did what I mentioned above. Please edit it, rather than reverting, if you don't like it the way it is now. It is no more POV than it was before, considering that what I put in was already there. God's Webmaster 20:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Should keep this part. The answer that Jesus gave corresponded with the question from the Pharisees. (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9) The Pharisees only asked about a man putting away a woman. Jesus only answered about a man putting away a woman. The disciples acknowledged this by referring to "the case of the man". (Matt 19:10) There is no reason to apply this language to women putting away men. There is no reason to misappropriate the language. The language obviously pertains to Jewish males putting away their wives in Matt 19. and Matt. 5. This was the first century Jewish cultural attitude about divorce in a male dominated society. There is no historical dispute about this. Christian 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The section that was added has a lot of speculation: "Some suppose", "probably", etc. Plus, in my view at least, it violates Wikipedia:No original research guidelines. God's Webmaster 20:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what parts are original research. A mere assertion is not enough. The Classical Commentators agree there was a debate between Hillel and Shammai. Many of them agreed that Jesus answered them according to their debate. Some say Jesus agreed with Shammai. I also refer to other works already written on Wikipedia. I ask some obvious questions that have been asked for years. Note that these are "questions" and not statements. Furthermore, there are different opinions about these questions. Christian 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For some original research I refer you to some Classical Commentators. These are not the only commentators I can refer you to, but they are Classical and perhaps therefore acceptable to you.

Adam Clarke Matthew 5 (Hillel and Shammai)

Adam Clarke Matthew 19 (Hillel and Shammai)

Adam Clarke Mark 10 (Notes Jewish women who divorced their husbands.)

Some Other Classical Commentators:

Jamison, Faussett, and Brown Matthew 5 (Hillel and Shammai)

Jamison, Faussett, and Brown Matthew 19 (Hillel and Shammai)

John Gill Matthew 5 (Hillel and Shammai)

John Gill Matthew 19 (Hillel and Shammai)

John Gill Mark 10 (Gives detail on Jewish women divorcing their husbands.)

John Lightfoot Matthew 5 (Notes: Our Saviour does not abrogate Moses' permission of divorces, but tolerates it, yet keeping it within the Mosaic bounds, that is, in the case of adultery, condemning that liberty in the Jewish canons, which allowed it for any cause. This indicates he thought these passages were exclusive to the Jews.)

John Lightfoot Matthew 19 (Hillel and Shammai)

If you can tell me there is harmony on this issue, even among some of the Classical commentators, then I will agree there are no questions that should be asked. However, there is not complete harmony among the Classical commentators. But the Classical commentators agreed this was a "Jewish Debate" between Hillel and Shammai. The obvious question is why should Christians borrow a "Jewish debate" about the rights of Jewish husbands to divorce their Jewish wives? Some Classical commentators note that Jewish women did not have the same rights as men. (For example, see John Gill on Mark 10 above.) However, it should be superflous to mention this because the language in Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9 and Deut 24:1-4 makes it very plain that Jewish women were being acted upon instead of doing the acting. Furthermore, the men may well have been "committing adultery" when they acted upon the woman. In fact, there is a debate about the Reflexive (snake swallowing its own tail) and/or the Deponent nature of the middle voice in the Greek when a man commits adultery by acting upon his own wife. Is he committing adultery by causing her to commit adultery? When the man acts upon his wife is he also acting upon himself? Is he involving his marriage in adultery by putting her away? After all, she is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.

It is also well-known that Jewish women could not initiate a divorce. (See Agunah.) Note also the commentary of John Gill on Mark 10 above.

It should be noted that many Classical commentators speak about these passages in Jewish terms. Some go into considerable detail about this "Jewish problem" and leave the assumption to Gentile Christians as to whether or not this "Jewish problem" pertains to them. Some obviously assume Christians are eventually involved since Jesus is doing the teaching. (This has always been a big assumption. It is anachronistic and Christian centric. If the Jewish right to divorce didn't even pertain to Jewish women, then how can we suppose this right applied to Christian women? There is no explanation except Christians often abuse "set theory" and become Judaizers. I have heard them say: "What Jesus said is good enough for me. Jesus said it. I believe it and that settles it." If you happen to believe that, as you mention in your blanket statement below that we should believe Jesus said this to Christians or eliminate all the Gospels, then let me refer you to Rudyard Kipling's six honest helping men. Let me also suggest that you ask "who", "when", "where", "why" and "how" as well as "what".

John Lightfoot, another Classic Commentator, goes even futher than those who remain silent about the application of these passages to Christians. He plainly insinuates that these passages applied to Jews. For example, he says in commentary on Matthew 5:31,

And yet hear them thus boasting of that law: "The Lord of Israel saith, That he hateth putting away, Malachi 2:16. Through the whole chapter, saith R. Chananiah in the name of R. Phineas, he is called the Lord of Hosts: but here, of Israel, that it might appear that God subscribed not his name to divorces, but only among the Israelites. As if he should say, 'To the Israelites I have granted the putting way of wives; to the Gentiles I have not granted it.' R. Chaijah Rabbah saith, Divorces are not granted to the nations of the world."

I repeat again the statement of John Lightfoot above.

I. Our Saviour does not abrogate Moses' permission of divorces, but tolerates it, yet keeping it within the Mosaic bounds, that is, in the case of adultery, condemning that liberty in the Jewish canons, which allowed it for any cause.

There you have it. If you will accept the original research of John Lightfoot about the Mosaic bounds, you will see that I have done no original research at all. Is a Gentile Christian within the Mosaic bounds? When I questioned that Matt 5:31-32, Matt 19:1-10 and Mark 10:1-6 pertained to Gentiles, I said nothing new. And I have merely mentioned some Classical Commentators who do not agree among themselves. Therefore, I ask, why do my questions imply original research? Am I more of an original researcher than John Lightfoot who was an English churchman and rabbinical scholar? Do you consider him to be a reliable source?

Therefore, please remove the original research notification or give me a good reason why you will not.

The differences between Jewish Christians trying to keep the Law and the Gentile Christians trying to avoid the Law is also well-known. (See Jewish Christians.)

Jesus, the greatest authority on Judaism I know, did not recognize no-fault divorce. He was a Jew. Hillel recognized no-fault divorce. Shammai accepted unchastity as a reason for divorce. Jesus recognized divorce for the reason he gave that corresponded with Deut 24:1-4. I am glad you qualified that "Judaism" always recognized no-fault divorce. (However, you did not specify which parts of Judaism always recognized no-fault divorce. This is inaccurate and too brief.) Christians who suppose that Matt 5:32 (where Jesus addressed the open ended no-fault divorce being taught in verse 31 by the Pharisees in opposition to Jesus and Mal. 2) and Matt 19:9 (where Jesus addressed a question from the Pharisees about no-fault divorce) often apply these verses to themselves and ignore the Jewish audience. Jesus did not evidently agree with the prevailing Jewish position. Christians abuse "set theory" because when the Pharisees asked Jesus "Is it lawful for a (Jewish) man to put away his (Jewish) wife for every cause (no-fault)?" they were asking Jesus about their Jewish no-fault divorce and not about a "Christian" no-fault divorce. Universal terms such as "man" and "whosoever" often apply to "all of those of a particular set" when the audience is appropriately considered. In this case, Jesus was addressing "all Jewish husbands". (Incidentally, "Jewish wives" did not have the same rights as their "Jewish husbands". This is a "cultural" point which you also have not included.) (See Agunah.) To expand the audience of Jesus to include all husbands past and future (Jewish or not) without reference to "Judaism" violates "set theory" and history or the cultural setting. Therefore, I commend you on your rewrite and your use of the term "Judaism". However, I wish you would point out that Jesus was a Jew and that he was speaking to Jews and not to "Christians". This would appropriately reflect the "historical" and "cultural" setting at the time Jesus was speaking. However, many Christians appropriating Jewish customs (Judaizers) do not accept this historical fact and apply these "Jewish" teachings to "Christians". This is very "anachronistic". I think you are perhaps seeing this Jewish culture from the eyes of a Christian and ignoring many cultural aspects? (This is just my protest that you did not specify which parts of Judaism have always recognized no-fault divorce when you did your rewrite. Was it Hillel, Shammai, Jesus or Rabbi Aqiba? (Gittin 9:10 of the Mishnah) Was it the later Rabbinic Judaism? Please be more complete and more specific. Thanks. (Incidentally, do you consider the scriptures an authoritative and reliable source? In my opinion, on these subjects, the scriptures should be considered the most authoritative. They are more authoritative than the teachings of one denomination Christian 23:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I did not add the section on Judaism; it was already there. That fact is that Jesus did address women divorcing their husbands in Mark 10. To say that Jesus was not speaking to Christians is wrong; Jesus' words are directly relevant to Christians. If we throw out everything he said to Jews, we have to throw out all four Gospels.

The Bible is THE final authority for Christian doctrine. What man says is pretty much irrelevant if it does not line up with the Scriptures.

I am not a Jew, so I will defer to someone else in editing the Judaism section.

I am not interested in discussing this topic further here. I do not have the time or inclination to "duke it out" to no purpose.

By the way, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

God's Webmaster 20:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to sign. I really don't expect you to "duke it out" with me here. However, if you are going to write on subjects such as divorce, I (and perhaps others) expect you to defend your positions and not just assume your biases and blanket statements are automatically correct. Sorry, I thought you wrote the part on Judaism. (I know you deleted the very small qualification I made to one of your blanket statements.) My mistake.

I will take the time to insert a few remarks and will let you be the judge about purpose. I don't accept your blanket statement "If we throw out everything he said to Jews, we have to throw out all four Gospels". This is a very erroneous statement as well as an over simplification. Jesus made many futuristic remarks about the characteristics of a coming Kingdom. (He also gave more complete and more detailed teaching to his disciples.) However, I also believe he addressed current well-known Jewish issues as well. It is not too difficult to discern his audience and the kinds of issues he addressed. Furthermore, many of the underlying principles of truth, justice and mercy Jesus taught can obviously apply to anyone. However, when Jesus addressed Jewish issues of his day, I don't necessarily assume that he is talking to me. As a Gentile Christian, I don't go by the "Law of Moses". I am interested (but not too concerned) when Jesus asks Jews questions such as "What did Moses command you?" (That is, what did he command you Jews? I know he wasn't asking what Moses commanded me since I am a Gentile Christian.) However, it's nice to know what Moses commanded them for informational purposes. But I don't think it is an absolute requirement for Gentile Christians such as myself. I also think Jews who convert to Christianity are free from the Law of Moses. However, if I were a Jew living in the time of Jesus, I would think it would be an absolute requirement to know what Moses commanded me. For example, when Jesus told the lepers he cleansed "Go shew yourselves unto the priests", I recognize that not even Jews can do that today. This command simply does not pertain to me.

Incidentally, I personally think what Jesus said to Jewish women (that may seem to have been a superfluous reminder) in Mark 10 was very relevant. Some Jews were being assimilated by other cultures. (Jesus was not being assimilated because he was a strict Jew.) Some of their Jewish women, such as Herodias, were actually divorcing their husbands. John the Baptist lost his head because of that practice. Jewish women were not allowed to divorce their husbands under Jewish law. (Jewish women could not directly initiate a divorce like we find in Deut 24:1-4.) (See Agunah.) Some Christians think in Mark 10 Jesus was just giving a more complete doctrine to his disciples "in the house". Whatever. This was not part of his answer to the Jewish question asked by the Pharisees in Matt. 19. It was also not part of his response to the open ended no-fault divorce the Jews were teaching in Matt 5:31--which was based on their understanding of Deut. 24:1-4. You failed to consider the circumstances in Mark 10. I consider this to be an unreasonable blanket approach to the subject. I think you have painted this subject with too broad of a brush.

(Why do Christians fail to recognize that Jesus functioned as a Jew in a Jewish culture and he was not always addressing future Christians? Some Christians have a very Christian centric attitude. I am concerned when Christians assume they must comply with and conform to Jewish law. Whoever wants to be justified by the Law of Moses is fallen from grace—Gal 5:5. It is a very serious matter when Christians try to appropriate Jewish doctrines--at least Paul thought it was. It rules out grace. Therefore, it matters for me to know when Jesus is speaking to me. Since I don't try to keep parts of the Law of Moses, I don't consider myself a debtor to do the whole thing--Gal 5. But I consider you a debtor to keep the whole thing because you are trying to bind Matt 19:9 and Matt. 5:32 on me, on yourself and on other Christians. I know you can't be one of the original apostles. Only authorized disciples of Jesus could bind and loose. Note the "apostles' doctrine" in Acts 2:42. Note keys to the kingdom in conjunction with binding and loosing in Matt. 16:18 and Matt. 18:18. In Matthew 18, Jesus spoke to his disciples of discipline, future doctrine (binding and loosing), and assembling in his Name. Do you think you can keep the entire Law of Moses? If not, then don't try to bind it on me.) Christian 23:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

God's Webmaster marked a paragraph as "original research". However, he will not state what the original research is. Therefore, I removed his tag. Christian 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

IP 209.6.186.139 says it is nonsense that Jesus clashed with Judaism. His clash with the Pharisees is so well-known that it is taken for granted by the scholars of this world--past and present. Obviously, the Pharisees came testing Jesus. They were not looking for information. They were seeking to discredit him. Later, Rabbinic Judaism evolved from the Pharisees after the destruction of Jerusalem. (see Talmud#Origins_of_the_Talmud ) I wish that 209.6.186.139 would identify themselves and quit editing without justification. Christian 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close Relationships template

I have added a Close Relationships template to the article. If the consensus is to remove the template because of the already large legal template, I am okay with that. (Kelly 04:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

It does make a rather large "blob" at the top of the page. --God's Webmaster 00:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the "blob." It looks fine to me on 1024*768. — Coelacan | talk 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No-fault divorce not well defined here

The article talks about "no-fault" divorce several times without explaining well what this means. A link to No-fault divorce would be useful earlier in the article, as the first such link appears 2/3 of the way through this long article, under "United States." I'd put it in but the organization of this article has confused me enough that I'm not sure where it should go. Any takers? — Coelacan | talk 19:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

==

[edit] Section "Who Initiates divorce?"

Please forgive me if this is old ground, but I can't see anything above. Loneranger4justice added this section and Onedayoneday deleted it, with the edit summary "remove loneranger4justice biased views and I know him and he is biased against women" After reading the two sources referred to, I have reinserted the section, and added links to the sources which as far as I can tell back up the section. Certainly, the first para is straight from US government statistics. If the second para is selective in its reading of the paper (presented at the 11th Annual Conference of the Children's Rights Council), then a fuller selection ought to be given. If the paper is unreliable then critical sources ought to be given. Mr Stephen 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still a mess

It's been over a year and a half since I first pointed out this article is a mess. Wow. I guess I was right about people in family law being too busy to help out Wikipedia because they are too busy dealing with their crazy clients. Anyway, I'm too busy fighting off vandals in State Bar of California and Lawyer to help out here. --Coolcaesar 08:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce rate statistics

It seems to me that the adage "half of marriages end in divorce" is misleading. I would be very interested as to what percentage of first-time marriages end in divorce in the U.S. I have been looking for this data but I cannot find it. Anyone? ---

[edit] A useful external link

I would like to propose addition of one more external link. The link is www.washingtondivorceonline com The afore-mentioned website provides complete information about divorce laws, divorce issues, etc. in Washington State. Please consider.

It's a state-specific, commercial service, and as such it's not appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Divorce is in general a state-specific issue in the United States. The website provides a wealth of information about divorce issues, articles about divorce as well as information about divorce laws. Please also see the website for other useful information such as directory of all local courts in Washington State. All of this information is not readily available anywhere else. This is an appropriate website as an external link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianjones10 (talk • contribs) .

It's a commercial service. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last section in religion and divorce clearly biased

The section about Jesus's clash with Judaism is a clearly biased and unsubstantiated section. I cannot believe this is allowed in the Wikipedia. Unless it is cleaned up and substantiated with more sources, I think it must be removed. 209.6.186.139 16:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It also has nothing to do with the treatment of divorce in Christianity or with the topic of divorce in general. Relationship between Judaism and Christianity (or the supposed relationship between Jesus and the rabbis) cannot be presented only from the Christianity's point of view, and in any event the discussion of this relationship does not belong in an unbiased article about divorce. The tone of that section is very ridiculous, like that of the discussion above. "Jesus is the greatest expert on Judaism that I've heard of." I mean, give me a break! How many experts have you heard of actually? I assume the greatest expert has read Deutoronomy 13:1-6. Aflyax 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you agree that the expression "tempting him" Matthew 19:3 indicates a controversy or a conflict, as I stated? Will you agree the expression "But I say unto you..." in opposition to the expression "It hath been said..." (Oral Tradition) represents a different opinion than the "oral tradition"? (See Matthew 5:31-32.) The expressions "said" and "heard" represent "oral" communication. No doubt, someone like Jacob Neusner would have another opinion about the expertise of Jesus and his grasp of Judaism. (I have read several books that indicate he would.) That is fine. He has a right to his opinion. I have read such opinions of the Rabbis often enough. I don't happen to agree with their opinions. The Pharisees were obviously curious enough (or vindictive enough) to pose questions to Jesus. Why did they bother to ask if Jesus was such a non-entity? Perhaps Jacob Neusner would put in a plug for Hillel instead. That is fine. I respect his opinions, but they are not mine. What I said about Jesus as an expert on Judaism represents my opinion as a Christian on just a talk page. I am assuming that 209.6.186.139 is a Hasidic Jew because of the edits 209.6.186.139 has made on Wikipedia. I would expect 209.6.186.139 to have another opinion. That is fine. I did not put my opinion about Jesus in the paragraph I wrote. However, conflict has a lot to do with the religious and cultural setting. All of the remarks about divorce were produced by conflict. There is also conflict among Christians. Some Christians suppose Jesus was teaching Christians and others suppose Jesus was merely giving his Jewish perspective to a Jewish problem. Besides, I put plenty of links to other more detailed treatments on these subjects. If it has the tone of conflict that is because the remarks of Jesus were born of a well-known conflict among the Jews. (Since when are Jews averse to conflict?) Since I consider Jesus to be the author of Christianity, I think this conflict belongs in the Christian remarks. (However, I don't consider Jesus to be a naive Jew who didn't know what was coming down the pike and never dreamed of Christianity.) I and others, such as John_Lightfoot, don't agree with some Christians that Jesus was speaking to a "Christian" problem. (Christianity didn't even exist.) I especially do not like the Judaism part that glosses over the opinions of such people as Shammai--pretending a united front has always existed. That's why I don't agree that the Jews have always recognized no-fault divorce. Some of the Jews did. I don't get that impression reading Mal 2:11-16. Jews do this because the opinion of Hillel prevailed in the evolution of the Mishnah. I may be a Christian, but I am not naive enough to suppose that all the Jews have always come to the no-fault conclusion. I want to thank you for the remarks--even if they are negative. This is much better than just deleting the material. Do you have anything substantial besides negative remarks? I would like to read it. Christian 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the discussion of the relationship of Jesus with the Oral Torah in this context and your treatment of the events as if there is objective evidence that they have actually occured in the form positioned by Christianity. There are, for example, strong opinions backed up by attempts of objective literary analysis that Jesus was a pharisee (e.g., "Jesus the Pharisee" by Hyam Maccoby). Such a position would be contrary to your description of the argument as if it historically happened. More importantly, however, this whole discussion does not belong to this article. There is a view on divorce in Christianity, and it is expressed in the paragraph above (from "within Christianity" to the quote from Romans); the discussion below is one-sided and, I repeat, out of context of the article. As to your comment about "glossing over" Shammai's opinions, with all due respect, you don't seem to understand how Judaism's legal system functions, and what role the argument between the houses of Hillel and Shammai (and other arguments, e.g., between Jerusalem and Babylon Talmud or between various sages in the discussions of the Talmud) play in it. The opinion of the House of Shammai is never glossed over; it is simply not Halacha. This is not the place to discuss it, however. 23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I am familiar with your concept of Halacha. (However, I don't propose to lecture you on it.) But I think you would have been more accurate to recognize that Shammai is not now recognized. (Even I knew that.) At one time, divorces were had based on Shammai and on Hillel. (This was before Rabbinic Judaism.) I am just objecting to the idea that there has always been a consensus. There has not. There has been a majority viewpoint--I will agree. (Your prophet Malachi thought perhaps you were abusing the system?) Even the disciples of Jesus were startled at his opinion on the subject. However, at the time of Jesus, Shammai also had a legal and binding opinion on those who embraced it. This is where the controversy that includes Jesus comes to play. (I could refer you to other parts of Wikipedia to prove this. I certainly can go elsewhere to prove this.) At one time, Shammai's opinion was law for those who would accept it. (By the way, Jesus, my hero, also had a legal opinion. What better way to introduce divorce than to expose the roots of the subject?) Christian 00:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't argue that you may be familiar with the concept of Halacha, but I am not sure you fully understand how it works. During the rabbinic times, the opinion of the majority was binding, although the alternate opinions were still considered the "words of the living G-d". Today, opinions of Shammai are studied in no less detail by Talmud students in the yeshivas throughout the world, as well as the local opinions of the rabbis that were ultimately rejected. Shammai's opinion is not recognized as binding upon the Jews (at least in the pre-messianic times), but it is certainly recognized as a valid opinion within Judaism. I am not going to further argue about the exact nature of the supposed argument between Jesus and the Pharisees. (Although it seems strange to me that Jesus would side with the school of Shammai, while his teachings are much more like the teachings of the school of Hillel, unless I misunderstand what you're trying to say.) My argument is that this particular discussion does not belong in this article, as I explained above).

I have just reread the section. It asks several questions but does not seem to answer them. Did Jesus remove the potential problem of Agunah? I don't know, did he? I propose that you actually answer the questions in a positive way, indicating that this is what Christianity claims, and remove the part starting from the words "Expressions used by Jesus...", since it clearly (in my opinion) does not belong here. I mean, it's great that you guys think that Jesus had a problem with Pharisees (which were actual Pharisees of the time) in the sense that he contradicted not the Written Torah but only the Oral Law (and one can argue for some time about this, as well as about whether the two can be logically separated, and whether this disagreement was similar to that of Seducees, and whether the Pharisees of the New Testament are the historic Pharisees), but what does it have to do with the divorce? :) Cheers. Aflyax 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very tired of the spin and the slant on this subject. You see, some Christians appropriate or should I say misappropriate Jewish teachings and problems. They teach this controversy as if Jesus was putting forth opinions for Christians. Jesus was asked Jewish questions and Jesus gave Jewish answers. Jesus had a problem with some of the Jewish traditions. However, Jesus had tremendous and overwhelming respect for the written word. That's why I used all the expressions. They emphasize "but I say" in opposition to Moses. They forget all the other pro-Moses expressions Jesus used. (I personally think the Jews made a grave mistake in deciding their laws depend on an “oral tradition” that takes years to study. In my opinion, they also made it take precedence over the written word. They built such a “fence” around the Law you can’t even get at it.) I think Jesus had a very serious problem with the tradition. (But I don't expect the Jews to care what I think.) I definitely do not agree that Jesus was a Pharisee. (They said, but they didn't always do--just like many of us Christians.) As a Christian, I want Christians to be free from all of these Jewish details. I don't want them to be free from the principles. I just want them to be free from all the Jewish details. That's why I want them to understand that some of these details do not pertain to Christians. However, I think there are a lot of principles that Christians and Jews have in common. After all, Christians were originally Jews. Christianity grew out of Judaism. However, Paul released Gentiles from many problems such as Kosher Laws, Circumcision and other Jewish Laws. However, many Christians still try to borrow the "other Jewish Laws". However, as I go through Wikipedia, I see how Christians spin and slant the Kosher Laws in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. Jesus was talking about a Jewish purity law that had to do with "washing your hands" (useless traditions) and Christians make these passages pertain to the Jewish Kosher Laws. In fact all the translations except the KJV have “purging meats” mean making all meats clean. That is, Jesus did away with the Jewish kosher laws instead of just acknowledging meats travel through the body—kosher or not. (This was news to Peter because he still hadn't got the message by Acts 10. He never had eaten anything common or unclean.) Then Christians, and some Jews, have Jesus breaking the Sabbath. Yet Jesus did not do away with the Sabbath. He simply made arguments about the ways to keep it. (Later he became dead to it.) We should not bind Jewish Laws on Christians. There are many commentators and scholars that recognize Jesus was answering a Jewish Debate on the subject of divorce. Therefore, my research is not original.

Jesus did not release women from Agunah. Christians suppose that when you admit that a woman could not divorce her husband, then you are somehow admitting that she is equal with the man who also could not divorce his wife. Once you admit the woman was equal with her husband you can claim she had equal causes for a Jewish divorce. I think this is absurd. I believe Jesus was merely acknowledging that some Jewish women were divorcing their husbands because they were being assimilated. Therefore he was stating what should have been obvious but was not always practiced. John the Baptist stated what should have been obvious to Herodias. Was John the Baptist preaching "Christian" doctrine when he said it was not "lawful" for her to be married to Herod Antipas? No he was telling her what is obvious, or should have been obvious, to every Jew. (See Mark 10:10-11.)

Now don't get me wrong. Some Jews and some Christian scholars try to depict Jesus as a naive Jew who couldn't have possibly known the big impact he was going to make. But there is scripture after scripture that shows Jesus had foreknowledge of what was coming. Don't take offense, but I think you have missed the boat. (But what do you care what I think?) However, when Jesus is asked what is "lawful", then I figure he gives a "lawful" or legal opinion. I just ask myself what was lawful in those days. Well, Jesus was a Jew and he lived like one under the law.

This is why all these questions belong in the Christian section. I know Jews put a lot of emphasis on the disclaimers such as Matthew 5:17-18. (I see this on Larry King all the time. Don't you Christians get it, the Rabbis will say, Jesus supported the Law. Believe me, I have always gotten it.) However, I believe Jesus became "dead to the law" when he died. But he didn't destroy the Law. (This is a distinction you Jews may not get or accept.) I believe Jesus is the defender of all truth Jewish or not. However, Christians have Jesus fighting Moses. Nevertheless, I see Jesus as proving Moses and the Prophets right down to the last letter. I see validation. In fact, I believe Jesus validated everything Moses said about him. However, when you become dead to a relationship, then you are free to have another relationship--such as become Head of the Church which is your bride and your body. (They twain shall become one flesh.)

If it looks like Jesus was imposing on your Jewish traditions, it was because he was imposing on your Jewish traditions. (This is my tautology for the day.) I figure the Son of God ought to be able to understand the Law of Moses. In fact, I believe Jesus kept the Law of Moses to the last letter. I know Neusner won't agree because I have already read his book. However, I really don't care what Neusner thinks and he really doesn't care what I think. He just wants Christians to leave him well enough alone. I feel the same way. I want to be free from all Jewish details. (However, in my opinion, Neusner is on the losing end.) Why don’t you Jews help me to show Christians that Jesus was not speaking against the Law of Moses, and that teaching against it would have been blasphemy—a grave sin? I may try to think of a way to state it more positively. However, I really don't think the paragraph will stand after I have offended many of the Jews and a large part of Christendom. But I don't care, I will fight for it anyway. After all, this is not the mainstream media--thank G-d. Christian 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus rant, and text, and resulting talk-page detrium, is bad.

Look, folks, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Not a debate about the piety of an unmarried woman like Mary and if her son was a bastard, not a debate about whether or not female popes can get a divorce, not an endless argument from masoretic texts.... this is not a religion page. Ronabop 08:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Like I said, "Jesus came into conflict...." Our true feelings are exposed. Perhaps Ronabop can put a positive spin on the religious/historical context? Christian 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Now this article has really gone to hell! (See my earlier comments above about how family law experts are WAY too busy dealing with crazy clients to help out here.) --Coolcaesar 05:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll peel some of this apart, because it's just such a nightmarishly bad article that I barely know where to begin. However, the first 400 years of the Early Church, the church maintained a unanimous voice opposing divorce. --- Er, totally wrong. Ever hear of the libertine gnostics? Pauline priviledge? In the first 400 years, the church wasn't even unanimous that Jesus had even existed as a real human being, let alone unanimous in interpretation of domestic laws regarding property, inheritance, and cohabitation. Expressions used by Jesus such as "you have heard", "it hath been said", "it is written", "have you never read", "keep the commandments", "why do you break the commandments with your traditions?" and "what did Moses Command you?" indicate that Jesus generally respected the Written Laws and sometimes opposed Jewish Oral Traditions. --Or, perhaps these phrases indicate that Jesus was big on speaking in 15th century english terms, that none of his audience could understand. The whole tone of the piece speaks down to our readers, as if they are not capable of serious biblical study, and to cap it off, much of the href's are just link-outs *not* to an actual source, but to some personal web page code that redirects to an actual source. I guess I know what my first cut to the article will be... removing the linkspam. Ronabop 06:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh lovely. It's a template. This will be... fun. Ronabop 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ronabop. Thanks for the headings. That helped a lot.

Thanks! Sometimes a tiny edit can mean a lot. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was forced to put in the links because I was accused of "original research". Actually, the links were to online commentaries that are available for human consumption. They are public reproductions of the classical commentators--not personal web pages. I never wanted to use them in the first place. However, some people here seem to edit freely and make accusations about original research. However, I don't see any of their sources. I actually had real sources from commentators who have been respected in the past.

I guess you might be newish around here, this happens a *lot* in religious articles. I find that it is often much easier to say things in a passive way: "according to Hengels(citation), blah blah blah" rather than stating "blah blah blah (Hengels citation). Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that into consideration. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I am not into textual criticism, I wouldn't know about the 15th century stuff. I don't think textual criticism belongs here either. I know Matthew was orginally written in Hebrew and then in Greek.

Well, you got the point, which is what matters. WRT Matthew, I'm not sure how you "know" that, see Gospel_of_Matthew for some of the details. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is another opinion.

One link to Early Reference about Matthew in Hebrew. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The authors of those opinions lacked a more modern opinion that language changes over time, and betrays the date of authorship. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The KJV is merely a rather poetic translation. I really think the expressions reveal the true attitude of Jesus about the "written word". We may not like the "written word" but that is not the real issue. What did Jesus think about it?

Well, considering that no modern or ancient scholar thinks that Jesus ever actually had a chance to personally proofread and correct the works, that's a rather challenging question. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I think Jesus is part of the Godhead, I am sure he had a personal hand in it. However, I really meant, what did he think about the Law and the Prophets. He certainly had a chance to read that. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since most current scholarly dating posits that the synoptics were written well after the death, are you stating that the writers had *no* free will, and were forced to put pen to paper in the way that jesus intended? They were not allowed to invent things, change things, edit things? Or are you positing that jesus came down to correct bad passages, or bad phrasing, after his rise to heaven? Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Free will has nothing to do with Divine Revelation. According to John 16:12 the disciples would be guided into all truth by the Spirit (Holy Ghost). Jesus would give them the Spirit. They were not to premeditate what they would say because they were guided by the Spirit. Jesus also gave them the "keys to the Kingdom" (Matt. 16:19). Whatever they "bound on earth would be bound in heaven" (Matthew Matt. 16:19 ,Matt. 18:18). You seem to be discounting the work of the spirit. This is also my reply for your other objections.

You have made it plain you do not respect the "written word" that Jesus used as a Jew. However, Jesus did respect the "written word"--that is the whole point. (I don't care what you think about what Jesus did. What did Jesus think? That is what is germane to the whole subject.) He also claimed to be in the beginning with God, so he did not have to travel back in time (see below). He inserted himself in history at the proper time. He said to the Jews, "before Abraham was I am." (I did not intend for my remarks on the opinions of Jesus about first century divorce to become a proof for the existence of God. I will leave that up to Thomas Aquinas.) Christian 13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole divorce controversy, or cultural war, in the Gospels hinges on interpreting the written word (Deut 24:1-4).

For some, maybe. You keep going back to a JEDP book as a reference, and that same book advocates selling your children to pedophiles and slavers, if the price is right. It certainly *is* (IMNSHO) an interesting theological point, but I'm not sure it belongs in the divorce article. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am just trying to show that Jesus was not against the written word. He exhibited respect for it, so why should he try to oppose it? On the other hand, he was not so impressed with what the Jews had "heard" and what the Rabbis had "said" about the "written word" on this subject. That's why he used expressions like "you have heard".

I'll try to find a rabbit that chews cud. My personal opinion (which does not belong in the article at all) is that jesus' point was that the text was valuable, but any given person's interpretation of that text was not. Including mine. Or yours. Or his, as filtered through humans many years after his purported death. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the debate. I'm not sure it belongs in this article, nor do selective interpretations of prior works, to lend credence to a debate... which probably doesn't belong in the article. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the orignial culture, indicated by the questions I asked, has a big impact on the application of these passages to Christians. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if the tone seems condescending, but that is really a large part of the whole culture war thing.

Well, sometimes christians favored raping and killing innocent people in the name of their god in their wars... I'll take condescending over that. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Christians keep making claims for the authority of Jesus versus the authority of Moses. Jews make claims for the authority of the Rabbis versus the authority of a Jewish rebel who was born of fornication, and should be put to death for preaching more than one God (as was mentioned above in the Deuteronomy 13:1-6 reference by one of my critics).

The Arius articles are a good place to learn from. Some christians consider it hersey to call jesus christ a "god". Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're wandering, but welcome to wikipedia! :) Have you met Xenu yet? We have many followers of many traditions and faiths, but we have to remember that our goal here is *not* to be right. Our goal is to describe all of those who think they're right, and why they think it. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus was in a culture war with the Pharisees. He opposed their opinions about divorce. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, there was no respect for Jesus in that remark. However, I have respect for Jesus, Moses and all the Prophets.

Do you have respect for Xenu? Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a deep respect for all the "written word", and I have practically zero respect for textual criticism and "oral traditions". Some have respect for none of the above. Some just have respect for Moses and the traditions. It is all about respect. (This also is not original research.) But thanks for the restructure job. It helped a lot. Christian 13:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you got bitten, we try not to do that.... WP:BITE, but your encyclopedia writing style could likely upset less people if you... well... stepped away from stating the truth as you see it, and also made plain the truth as others saw it, in as few words as possible. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do have strong opinions. I think conflict leads to emotion which leads to thought. After all, to fall from grace for trying to keep the Law of Moses by borrowing Jewish Laws is a heady thought. However, I have tried to keep emotion to the "talk page". If people get mad it's because they care. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why all of this is necessary, including the explanations about Jesus's supposed (according to Pauline views) relationship with Judaism and Oral Torah

I think it has to do with things like whether or not it's okay to stone one's children for smart mouthing. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus said it, I believe it, and that settles it, but I don't care. Some Gentile Christians find the teachings of Jesus to the Jews good info, but some of the details are irrelevant. That's the whole point. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

and your personal disrespect to the Oral Tradition, especially since it is not clear you understand its role and the reasons for its validity in Judaism.

I think we can all agree that word for word, sound for sound, has not been as meticulously scribed. Thus, we cannot treat oral tradition the same way. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I subscribe to the teachings of Paul on the divorce issue. I don't accept the majority Talmudic position. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(See Deutor. 17:8-12. This is the part of the written Mosaic law which was violated. Besides the fact that the majority of laws of Moses cannot be understood without some sort of Oral Tradition.

Oh, TV preachers do it all the time. :) Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, your own religion, including especiall many areas of Gospels, cannot be understood without and oral tradition that must interpret the written text, and the whole claim to the validity of the Gospels is that they are the oral tradition of the events and teachings of Jesus written down many years after the actual events. Thus, the whole validity of Christianity is based on an acceptance of a specific oral tradition.) In any event, there is a perfectly good article on divorce according to Christianity here[3], and I have no problem with its language, neutrality or lack of biase. I think its major points must be summarized and expressed here in a clear positive language (with a reference to the actual article). Aflyax 15:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to rephrase how I feel about "oral tradition". I don't disrespect all "oral tradition". (Sorry, my remark does leave that impression. There are many good ideas in the Talmud and in the Mishmash.)

I just laughed soda out of my nose. Mishnah, perhaps? Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake but left it in because it is a Yiddish term for the kinds of "free for all" displayed in the Mishnah. After all, are the writings of Paul respected by my critics? Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disrespect it as a corpus that must be accepted even if there are other more accurate and valid interpretations of the "written word". I am familiar with your "Jewish Manual" analogy. I also know that you must consult your local Rabbi when you get confused. I guess that is where I diverge. I don't believe in religious democracy. Truth is more important than the "majority" or the "Rabbinical" opinion. (I feel the same way about Christian pastors and evangelists.) I don't think the Rabbinical opinion is something I must endure.

Even if that rabbi is jesu christi? Ronabop

I consider him primarily to be God. Rabbi was once one of his secondary functions. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think this is where Jesus diverged. He diverged when the traditions became more important than the commandments.

You think that some faiths hold traditions higher than their rules? I am aghast. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think faiths should be based on what I consider to be the scriptures and the epistles. Paul wrote most of them. His friend Luke wrote Acts and Luke. (If we just had these writings, it would have all we would essentially need. Textual critics ignore the fact that these writings could have been disputed during the life of Paul because many of the people who could refute them were "eye witnesses". See 1 Cor. 15. I am not speaking about the Judaizers of course. They attacked Paul wherever he went for trying to free Christians from the Law of Moses.) Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of like the policy of Wikipedia. We are not interested in the truth. We are interested in creating an encyclopedia and maintaining the "status quo".

Nope. We maintain "what is known by many". Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Known by many" is very subjective don't you think? When the insiders here vote on a paragraph, are they the many? Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. The vote stays until a new user comes in. Which is often. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That is why Wikipedia has an "original research" disclaimer. I respect that. But if Wikipedia becomes like the "mainstream media" then I am sorry. I am not interested. I don't like gate keepers.

Hi! Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Given your background in "system security" (such as for the NSA and the Department of Army) I think you are well qualified as a gatekeeper. However, this is not "system security". Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The gatekeepers are folks who know their work. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the need for sources. (I don't understand it when I cite sources and they are disregarded.) However, I understand their function. I am not saying Jesus agreed with Shammai or Hillel on the divorce issue. He may have agreed with Shammai. But I strongly believe he supported the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Since I consider him to be the original author of Deuteronomy 24:1-4,

Jesus teleported back in time? Now even *I'm* confused. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

by giving it to Moses through the disposition of angels, I accept his interpretation of the passage. (I don't expect you to agree with me on that because I know we subscribe to different authorities. Actually, I love Jewish material very, very much. I read it very, very often. I often refer to the opinions of Rabbis when I want to try and figure something out in the Bible. However, I don't recognize Rabbis as final authorities.) In Matthew 5, Jesus used the formula "You have heard...but I say." He refuted the Rabbinical method. Rabbi Hillel says .... got refuted. He did not recognize Rabbis as the final authorities. (If he truly is the Son of God, and I believe he is, then he is the final authority. Again, I don't expect you to agree.) However, this is the context of the divorce debate. This is real history. This is real culture. I think people ought to understand this culture up front. I provide plenty of links to the other material. However, I disagree with many of their unsourced statements. Their lack of bias is also very questionable. (There is more than one way to slant and spin without showing overt disagreement. You ought to know. You are a Jew and the Jews have majored in the media.

Dude.

DUDE.

Please apologize. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jews are especially good at gate keeping. After all, why else would Jews create a Talmud and challenge you to understand it?) Sorry, Jesus is my man--let's keep it in the Christian section. Christian 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

To Alyax.

I tried to take some of the edge off the paragraph by removing some redundancy and some emphasis. I also substituted the word "Pharisee" for "Jewish" wherever I could. This pulls the paragraph back in time and obscures identity. I want to keep the "Expressions"--mostly for Christian reasons. Christian 01:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

(I have not addressed the Pauline part of the paragraph above. I didn't write it in the first place. This is also very contoversial issue and I didn't want to cause more offense.) Christian

[edit] Split out

I split out to an article about religions, and another article about nations/societies. The implications section could also likely be split out. Ronabop 08:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, I am making an "Implications of divorce" article. Ronabop 09:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Make no mistake.."

"Make no mistake, divorce is sin!"

This is blatantly retarded.

But it was fixed :).

[edit] "Statistics" section appears biased (pro divorce) - Also excessive advertising of divorce website

The statistics section has a lot of somewhat vague looking figures, some dont actually have any figures just statements. I have not been able to find the statistics on the website insidedivorce.com. Also this website appears to be very commercial in nature, their slogan is "Winning The Life You Want" - hardly neutral and suggests pro-divorce. The section relating to statistics on children in divorce all but suggests divorce is good for children, all the time, everywhere. However I am biased in that I'm a child of a divorced family - does anybody else agree this section smells a bit iffy? Actually on re-reading it the whole statistics section seems very sensationalised. As the stats can't be verified (there isn't a direct link and they don't appear to be available on the website) should this section just be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.5.212.111 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

The section on British research was copied directly from http://www.easier.com/view/Lifestyle/Relationships/Features/article-97408.html. It has now been removed. ~MDD4696 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add a list of divorced people?

We have a list of people with multiple marriages. I am thinking of adding a list of divorced people with English Wikipedia articles to be sortable by men's surnames, women's surnames, dates married, and dates divorced. Any comments before starting such a list? (The list could become very long if started.)--Jusjih 14:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it sure could. These days, with divorce in most developed countries so common, half the planet will be listed. How about limiting it to people who were especially notable for their divorce(s)? E.g. Ronald Reagan, first divorced US president; Henry VIII also qualifies; hmmmm....head scratching....I'm stumped. NuclearWinner 00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce vs. Marital Discord

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a chat room... I have suggested this section is uncyclopedic and needs either deleting or completely rewriting... Davrosfromskaro 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleting. Mersperto 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Child divorces Parents

I know it's not common, and it might have only happened in that famous case, but shouldn't the article mention that a child can divorce his parents if certain conditions are met. Or at least mention the case where this happened (I can't remember who it was). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 (talk) 06:07, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Condonation, Connivance, Provocation and Collusion

I think that the terms listed in the at-fault section need more of an explanation. Just linking to the proper articles isn't enough. I wrote the following but I just don't know enough about it to post it in good conscience. Could someone else take a look?

• Condonation -- If the accusing spouse gave the accused spouse permission to perform the offense, then accusation is given less weight.
• Connivance -- If the accusing spouse tricked, encouraged or helped the accused spouse to perform the offense, then the accusation is given less weight.
• Provocation -- If the accusing spouse provoked the accused spouse into performing the offense, then the accusation is given less weight.
• Collusion -- If the accused and accusing spouses are working together for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, then the accusation is given less weight.

It may be relevant that the wikilink for collusion links to the general collusion article, which mentions nothing about collusion in divorce. As such, I am guessing my tuchas off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.50.221 (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is hopeless

While trying to find out a couple of simple facts regarding divorce, I am presented with a load of subjective and obviously point-of-view pushing nonsense as the article constantly diverges on a tangent away from the subject matter (which for this article is 'Divorce' by the way).

More quantifiable facts (the divorce rate - not reasons behind it - of most countries is known fact, but hardly mentioned in this long article in favour of opinionated 'reasons') and less unproven opinions please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.133.197 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree totally. Care to help us with this? You don't need to be an expert - just interested enough to do a bit of research, even on a small point - and add balance wherever you can. Your analysis is very helpful to the editors who are hipdeeop in this article and can't quite see the problems with it. NuclearWinner 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Causes

This section seems to leave out the root causes. One root cause behind divorce is people getting married BEFORE knowing everything about their partners, rather than after. Another is the inability to enjoy everything, and I mean everything, about their partners, regardless of how unusual or cruel they may be. A woman that marries a man, only to find out that he is a rude pig and hates that will of course look for a divorce before long. On the other hand, a woman that knows and enjoys everything about her man will marry happily regardless of whether he is a rude pig, rarely home, etc.24.118.227.213 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU

If you look at the football results each week, and have the vague intention of returning to the UK to retire, then you have retained domicile.

This whole section on the EU doesn't make any sense, but I'm gonna delete this silly sentence and hope someone who knows something about this will fix it. VaughnJess 07:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] parental rights

parents have rights but to give them up takes an unlimited amount of time time most single parents dont have. as a child with divorced parents i wish i didnt have to switch from home to home holiday to holiday day from day miss out on friends birthdays because i have t go to my parents i love having joint custody but why cant the children choose maybe we dont like one of the parents and maybe we hate living with a sibling where was our say? why dont i get to ever say dad no mom no i want to go to Kylie's or want to go to the movies with Lauren not stay home and listen to the t.v. with you. please re —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.158.157 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request a link

The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good divorce resource. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/32.htm

The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.

The divorce page of this site provides information and articles on the effects of divorce on children, including practical advice for parents as well as important legal information. It also covers issues such as child support, visitation rights, the role of fathers, child custody laws and other legal information. Teamme 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Divorce: Responsible Divorce

The articles quotes "collaborative divorce" and "mediated divorce" but not the broader category they are part of: alternatives to the adversarial divorce. We call this "Responsible Divorce". "Responsible" stands in contrast to the self-indulgent approach that consists in escalating conflicts in the hope of "winning" the divorce, or spoiling the other party's chances of "winning". See http://www.proactivechange.com/divorce/responsible I am not putting this as an edit into the article because I have a conflict of interest. Wikizeno 13:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small Dick?

In the article it mentions Small Dick being a criterion under Summary Divorce. Is this in error? CortlandKlein (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daffy Duck's Divorce

Let's not forget that Daffy Duck's wife almost got a divorce because Daffy made her egg disappear. Later in open court Daffy made the egg reappear and then it hatched. As best as I can determine, she called off the divorce. Unfortunately I don't know what year that was and what circumstances followed because in later years Daffy appears to be a bachelor again, or a very free husband in a very open marriage. Greenbomb101 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce Avoidance Techniques?

While Wikipedia is not a prescriber of techniques, it does seem to me that at least some mention of the family therapy article is merited here. Simesa (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What I found is that the Relationship counseling article is a better "Main", and I made sure that it and Family therapy tightly reference each other. Simesa (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] America

Isnt the divorce rate in The U.S. above 50%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.239.85 (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)