Talk:Agunah

message: I've NPOVed this a bit. I was wondering if there is a legal reference for Judge Menachem ha-Kohen's verdict of >400,000 NIS for withholding a get. JFW | T@lk 15:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We need more modern-day sources as well. Could anyone reference a cause celebre agunah case here? JFW | T@lk 20:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Could you provide a source that we could WP:CITE for this? This is a very good modern-day example that would really inform the article, Chani. JFW | T@lk 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: changed the spelling to "aguna", which seems to be supported by a Google search. However, the page title is still AgunaH. Anyone object to a formal move? JFW | T@lk 16:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This move has my strong support. --Redaktor 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we can ever decide what is 'correct'. We can try though to find a sensible and consistent spelling. There really is no good reason for the final 'h' in most of these words. Judah is clearly an exception since it has passed into the English language that way.--Redaktor 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point; but I think that most of these words written with an "h" are actually pronounced "ah" closer to a "mapik heh" then for example "tuna" where the "a" doesn't continue with a flourish. I think we can say that Tuna is pronounced Tu-na but agunah or aguna is pronounced agun-ah. Whatever you decide is fine with me, I was only trying to clarify the issue. Itzse 19:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope no-one thinks it should be pronounced agun-ah, because that would indeed not be correct. The pronunciation is agu-na. Discussion here also tends to favour omission of final silent he.  --Redaktor 12:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aguna 

message: removed from the intro the paragraph that describes the plight of women whose husbands refuse to grant a get as means of extortion. I don't understand his point that "this is not the halachic definition of agunah". Well, Wikipedia does not use halacha as a content guideline - almost everybody refers to these women as agunot. That includes a long cover article in the Jewish Observer some years ago. Lishna de-alma nakat. JFW | T@lk 14:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has a NPOV, religious definitions are required to always come second and be explicitly called outt as such. Secularism is the way to go. Sticking to 2200yo fiction is just stupid. 89.204.138.63 (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being refused a get - not an agunah? 

message: I corrected the citation from Masekhet Yevamot according to a well established correction in the Hebrew equivalent article. There is one detail which I don't know how to incorporate in the article. In Israel, where civil marriage is impossible, but there is a system of common law marriage, many secular men don't wait too long for their wife's acceptance of the get, and simply live with their new partners under the common law marriage terms. If their new partner is single or divorcee, it doesn't affect the status of their new children, but it does create a strange case of ad-hoc bigamy (if they die without leaving a will, bothe women are entitled to their share in his property, according to a supreme court ruling). Being stigmatized as mamzer is still a strong holdback which prevents "chanined women", even secular ones, from acting similarly. DrorK 05:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fell into a lion's den 

message: (Before you read the following comment of mine.  Know that, at present, my objection has been rendered moot by recent edits.)
Veecort (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence seems very misleading. 

message: I've created an article on the Chaim Grade novel, The Agunah, and I am mentioning it here in case anyone thinks it is worthy of inclusion in this article, perhaps in the hatnote.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Choor monster (talk • contribs) 
:Done. -M.Altenmann >t 23:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Agunah]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Agunah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071014052041/http://www.icjw.org/showitem.asp?itemid=advocacy_Agunot&title=Religious%20Rights%20(Agunot) to http://www.icjw.org/showitem.asp?itemid=advocacy_Agunot&title=Religious%20Rights%20%28Agunot%29
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked and found that the information is not in the source, so I added a tag to it. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While blogspot itself is not a reliable source, perhaps someone has the time to listen to the interview as regards how R' Elyashiv felt about this issue, as well as R' Moshe, and yibadel machayim l'chayim R'Dovid feel about hafkaa and prenups: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015_10_01_archive.html. -- Avi (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Regarding the two sources of R' Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, I was not able to find on-line versions. However, it is clear he has wrote against using Hafka'ah this way a number of times (see http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-road-paved-with-good-intentions.html where it quotes a translation of a letter of R' Goldberg specifically mentioning the Tehumin article(s)). -- Avi (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources are examples of rabbis who say these measures are against halakha, or they say that "most Orthodox leaders" hold that they are against halakha? Because it is the latter we need, not the first. Debresser (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article from Weider and R' Cohen say that historically and modernly it is not used nor accepted for use. I couldn't find the two Goldberg sources to confirm, so perhaps we should delete those for now. -- Avi (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've removed the following content from the lead, because WP:NOTNEWS:
:In a 2015 case a beth din (rabbinical court) published an advertisement naming a man who had refused his (ex-)wife a get for 15 years, refusing him entry into any synagogue and suggesting that people should avoid social and business contact with him. Ten years before an advert criticising a man who had denied his wife a get had been placed by the beth din, but without calling for action.
:In 2007 the Chief Rabbinate found that in Israel men and women were refused divorce in equal numbers, 180 women and 185 men over a two-year period. The Director-General of the Rabbinical Courts said this showed that "the claims by women's organizations of thousands of women whose husbands refuse to give them divorces have no basis in reality". Nevertheless,
"A woman suffers more in this situation, as she is Biblically forbidden to marry again, and children she might bear to another man would be considered mamzerim (bastards) according to halakhah. A man is similarly not permitted to marry before being divorced, but the ban is much less severe (because monogamy was instituted by one single overreaching authority in Europe in around the year 1000CE, and was accepted in Europe (Ashkenazim), whereas Sefardic and Mizrahi (Eastern) Jewish communities did not until very recently.) This considered, his future children will not be considered illegitimate."
There is a need for this article to be less about events and initiatives and more about the big picture. JFW | T@lk 16:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the statistical information. I agree about individual cases, but it is important to know how many cases there are, and how they are divided between the sexes. Perhaps you removed that part by mistake. In either case, it should definitely be in the article. Debresser (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from the lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Agunah. 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/20070706112933/http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/divorce.htm to http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/divorce.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001162535/http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/prenup.htm to http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/prenup.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706113557/http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/index.html to http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Agunah. 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/20070728055519/http://www.jofa.org/about.php/advocacy to http://www.jofa.org/about.php/advocacy
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328104825/http://www.voices-magazine.com/index.php?page=inside_page&id=180 to http://www.voices-magazine.com/index.php?page=inside_page&id=180
*Added  tag to http://www.mucjs.org/ARUDraftFinal.pdf
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) 06:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: and , can we discuss the proposed changes and objections against these over here? Generally speaking I would recommend making small changes with WP:BRD and ongoing discussion. JFW | T@lk 14:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I'd also ask Hopesings69 to refrain from personal attacks, and assume good faith. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest to exclude people who try to portrait a religious oppinion as fact. Neutral Point Of View means Secularism First. 89.204.138.63 (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: added a recent case reported in the popular press as an example of how pressure may be applied to a recalcitrant husband. I think that the popular press is not a good source for such information, as it is very prone to narrow focus on the specific case at hand. I think a better source would examine the criteria systematically. The theme throughout this entire subject is "how much pressure would be considered excessive", with in addition the parameters set within the jurisdiction where the case is being dealt with. JFW | T@lk 05:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand JFW's misgivings about the "popular press"; my citation is a placeholder until I am able to find more substantial and scholarly discussion of the issue. I think any reasonable person will agree that a discussion of this issue as it presents itself in real life (and as it is reported in the "popular press") is, while not totally sufficient or an exhaustive discussion of the issue, certainly preferable to having no citation at all. While I continue to do research in order to find more substantive discussion of the circumstances in question, I invite JFW to add their own citations at their leisure. --newmila (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional sources - which hopefully will meet with approval - have been added, and my text restored. --newmila (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The text was true enough, and I wouldn't have removed it just because the source was less than ideal, but I am happy it has been restored with good sources now, thank to the good word of editors. Debresser (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: i'd contrast it with cases of US women hiring killers to resolve their agunah. religion sucks, thats why. Also, religion has no say in a lexicon. it is a study object only. 89.204.138.63 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for applying pressure