Talk:Grounds for divorce (United States)

message: I wrote this article as it was requestedDan 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation

message: Group 2 for Professor Konieczny's Sociology of Marriage class will cover the following topics:
*Fault grounds 
**adultery
**cruelty
**abandonment
**mental illness
**criminal conviction
*No-fault grounds
**Separation for a certain period of time 
**Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage relationship ((irreconcilable differences//incompatibility of temperament)) 
**What states accept this? MD & VA…
**Shift of the acceptance of these
***arguments for & against 
*OTHER GROUNDS
**Alcohol/ drug abuse
**Impotency beginning from the time of the marriage & continuing until the time of the divorce, such that the marriage was never consummated
**Failure to support 1’s spouse even though 1 has the ability to do so
*UNUSUAL GROUNDS
**Joining a religious sect that destroys the marriage (New Hampshire)
**Infection 1’s spouse with a venereal disease (Illinois) 
*Defenses to grounds
**The accused spouse was not actually at fault (for fault grounds)
***condonation//reconciliation 
***recrimination
***provocation
**Spouses were not actually separated for the requisite period of time (for no-fault grounds)
**There is still a chance of reconciliation (for no-fault grounds)
	
*Most common causes for divorce in the countries=
**adultery 
**desertion
**cruelty
**conviction of crime
RESOURCES:
*Choudhri, Nihara K. The Complete Guide to Divorce Law. New York: Citadel, 2004. Print.
*Haman, Edward A. How to File Your Own Divorce. 4th ed. Naperville, IL: Sphinx Pub., 2003. Print.
--Naf24 (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, both the outline and the references (reliability, relevance). Keep it up! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edu project

message: After reviewing many of the wiki pages that the other groups are working on, I have come up with some ideas we might want to think about incorporating on our page. 
Group 1 is creating a wiki page on College dating; when I first analyzed the groups page there was a picture on the wiki page. However, I believe there must have been a problem with that specific picture that they had to remove it. But, I think that by adding a picture it grabs people's attention and makes them more interested in reading the page (at least thats how I felt when looking at their page). We would just need to find a picture that is acceptable and has all the necessary copyright information.
In addition, on many of the pages under certain section headings there are links that say "see also;" like on Group 6's page, Single parent, under the section that is labeled "Effects," it says See also: Implications of divorce & "Implications of divorce" is linked to that wiki page. I think this will be very useful for us to include in our page as well because some of our topics/grounds we are covering have their own pages that may include information that we don't happen to include in our page, such as Irreconcilable differences. 
--Naf24 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal Review-Natalie Fisher  

message: Hi! I read your article, and it is really interesting! I never knew there was anything more than just a basic divorce.  I only have two suggestions:
1.) maybe remove some of the parenthesis int the first section about no-fault
2.) perhaps add in abuse (physical/emotional) to the section of reasons for fault divorces (if this applies...I am not sure it is a formal reason or not)
Your article looks really interesting--great job so far, guys!
BonnieNoel (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Bonnie for the suggestions! I am actually covering the Fault divorces section and abuse actually fits right in under the ground, "Cruelty." It is a formal reason so we definitely will be covering it,  good thinking!--Naf24 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review! 

message: I agree that our wiki page could use acceptable pictures. I have noticed the "see also" section, and that was another good suggestion that would add more helpful information on grounds for divorce to our viewers. Some of the suggestions that I would like to make is that I think we just need to add our information under our headings, use reference/cite links, and add more internal links to our sections. I have to do more research on external links but if we could add more information/links under the external link section I think that would enhance our wiki page as well. I think our wiki page is starting to come together nicely.
--Nas132 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review~Natalie Sebula 

message: hey there!! 
After reading your article it seems like you all have found a lot of insightful and interesting information on the topic of divorce, so I applaud you for the work you've done thus far. Something I would like to suggest to you is possibly adding a section about how divorce effects the family regarding fault divorce and no fault divorce (if there is separate information on how each individual type effects the family). 
Other than that I'd say your article looks great so far and I'm excited to see how it turns out in the end. 
Mjc112 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal Review 

message: Hey guys first I would like to say your article is coming along VERY well.  It is definitely much farther than my groups currently haha.  After looking it over there were two minor things that I figured I would point out, more reference related than anything.  First I thought I would ask about reference 5 and 6.  They seem to be the same reference (I may be wrong though since I was not the one that looked these references up), but provided they are the same reference, it might be worth combining the two into 1 since the only difference I saw was the pages used in each of them.  Second, I had noticed that there seemed to be a trend of 1 reference per section, though I am sure that is just while you guys are searching for more more references to "buff up" each section with.  Anyhow your page is looking terrific!
Kgw2 (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal Review 

message: I agree that our article would benefit from greater picture use and an expansion of references (and a reference list 'clean-up'). Based on what I have seen on some other people's pages, I think adding a 'history of divorce' section, and some relevant statistics (e.g. demographics, trends, effects on the family and society at large) could potentially make this article even better. Perhaps we could also provide more inside and outside links related to our topic. Ntj2 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review: Nicole Johnson 

message: Hey guys I have to say I think your outline is pretty solid and think you have a good amount of sections to describe your topic accurately and in an interesting way as well. It looks like a lot of these topics have legal implications so I think going to the Law Library might help you to get a better picture with court case examples or what ever you want to look up. I would say though to keep it interesting try no to go the legal route too much unless you think its essential in getting your message across. I agree with another review I saw in maybe making an abuse (physical/emotional) section in there which can sum up a lot of the other things you have listed. Other than that great progress. Davidjk43 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal Review 

message: Hi, I like the way this whole article is well-referenced. Good job! I noticed that a citation is placed after every sentence. This isn't necessary when a few sentences are being supported by the same reference. As you can see from this diff, I removed the citation found at the end of every sentence since the same reference is used for the whole paragraph. This is how the section looks like now. Although this is a minor problem (the content and referencing is more important), please have it corrected. Bejinhan talks  03:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will respectfully but strongly disagree. Why the references should've been combined (Wikipedia:CITE#Repeated_citations), each sentence needs to be referenced. On Wikipedia, content can be split, moved, or added. Imagine somebody splitting this paragraph into two - suddenly the first para is unreferenced. Imagine somebody inserting a referenced sentence in the middle, now falsely implying the preceding sentences are referenced with another ref than they were. With the Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue exception in mind, all sentences should be referenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I moved the article Grounds for divorce to Grounds for divorce (United States law) because it was clearly written from the American perspective. All other cultural practices were tacked on as an afterthought, not incorporated from the beginning. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ;References for above section
I hope this helps those who invested effort in the attempt to globalize the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest that this is added to the grounds for divorce (now a redirect here), and the current article is summarized there (per WP:SUMMARY). This would count towards extra credit if it is done by the students (hint :) ). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article moved to [[Grounds for divorce (United States law)]] 

message: The following section is confusing:
"Separation
Marriage partners who are living apart have grounds for no-fault divorce.[4] Like Louisiana, various states have statutes requiring the parties to live apart from one another for a certain predetermined period of time.[4][18] The reason the time limitation exists is to see if the couple can reconcile.[4] For example, differing from Louisiana, Pennsylvania state law does not permit legal separation.[19]"
Where does the reference to Louisiana suddenly come from?  Was it mentioned before?
-KaJunl (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  separation section 

message: this seems point-of-view:
"If one decides to file a divorce, a no-fault divorce should be taken into consideration.[22]"
-KaJunl (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  tone 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grounds for divorce (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227100415/http://www.kdlt.com/news/local-news/sd-house-votes-down-unilateral-nofault-divorce-proposal/31488202 to http://www.kdlt.com/news/local-news/sd-house-votes-down-unilateral-nofault-divorce-proposal/31488202
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Seems that the article Grounds for divorce (United States) both contains a lot of information that is redundant to content already found in Divorce in the United States, and most of Grounds for divorce (United States) can be merged into Divorce in the United States#Grounds for divorce. The fact that this seems to be the only split of a country's "divorce" versus "grounds for divorce" subjects, it may be best to combine the two articles. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is sensible to merge Grounds for divorce (United States) into Divorce in the United States. Arllaw (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose as the current summary/main, parent/child format (WP:SS) seem to work well; the Divorce in the United States#Grounds for divorce is a neat summary and reader can go to the more specialized page for more information. Merging the two would make a rather large single page (approaching 90k) and my view is that if isn't broke', don't fix it. Klbrain (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Divorce in the United States]]