Talk:No-fault divorce

message: :Shouldn't this page contain more arguments against no-fault divorce, in order to bring it closer to a neutral point of view?
::The problem is that most arguments commonly given today against no-fault divorce are really arguments against the availability of divorce of any kind.  The risk is that if we returned to a fault regime, then people would simply go right back to lying in court, as was common in the mid-1960s.  --Coolcaesar 7 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
:::I think that's a vast overgeneralization.  Some would argue that no-fault laws actually harm women by making possible unilateral divorce.  Under a fault-based system, both parties to a divorce have to collude to obtain the divorce, which means that one party can threaten not to cooperate in order to obtain, say, a higher property settlement.
::::No, your understanding is still incorrect.  Unilateral divorce already existed under the old system in the sense that a man could severely beat up his wife or flee the state forever or do some other downright mean act which would clearly indicate fault on his part.  The problem is that most people wanted amicable or uncontested or bilateral divorces, in which they could separate their assets and arrange for joint custody without having to first destroy everything they had worked for and go to jail.  
::::Second, your reasoning fails to deal with the problem of people colluding and lying in court, which was one of the fundamental reasons for switching to no-fault divorce.  The basic problem is that common law courts lack the power to execute their own civil judgments.  If every civil defendant tomorrow ignored all court judgments against them, then there would not be enough room in the jails to throw them all in for contempt.  The system works only because the majority of people at any given time respect the power of the courts, and try to tell the truth when they're in the witness stand.  If the majority of people came to believe that they could regularly get away with making affirmative misrepresentations under oath, then all testimony would become useless and the entire judicial process would break down.  That's why perjury and obstruction of justice have always been crimes. --Coolcaesar 05:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Arguments Against No-Fault 

message: I'm a little distressed that the article ends on this note: The "revolution" in no-fault divorce is now entering the third generation in some families, leaving children with parents, grandparents and even great-grandparents who have been divorced. According to Judith S. Wallerstein, director of the long-term study on the effects of divorce begun in the early 1970s, "divorce is a long-term crisis" which inflicts permanent psychological damage on children of divorce, who themselves are more likely to suffer failed marriages ("they don't have the template to follow") or even avoid marriage in order to avoid divorce. "A huge number are staying single."  
The tone seems to imply a critique of divorce itself, which isn't substantiated.  Does divorce cause certain behavior patterns or is it merely correlated with them?  Is it possible that some of these problems would be worse if these couples stayed married?  Basically--is divorce necessarily bad?  For that matter, is staying single bad?  The final quote seems to say so.  It's incredibly difficult for anyone to make a simple value judgment on such a complicated issue, no matter how long they spend looking at the problem.  If others agree, I'd like to see the issue treated in a more neutral manner. PoetrixViridis 22:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have long disliked that ending too.  There are several editors hostile to no-fault divorce who have persistently insisted on putting a non-neutral attitude to no-fault divorce into the article.  I have been too busy with lawyer work and with taking other bad editors to arbitration (see what happened to User:Ericsaindon2) to take some of these editors through the time-consuming dispute resolution process.   Although I contributed nearly all the sources in this article, my main focus right now is on keeping the vandals away from Lawyer and on fixing the Freeway v. Expressway mess (which has been a mess for 4 years now).  --Coolcaesar 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV on Arguments Against No-fault Divorce? 

message: Since the accuracy of the emancipation info is BAD (or VERY dated?) 18-21 is not accurate, voting rights are given to 18 year olds, they are full adults at that time (excepting alcohol)
Divorce rates percentage NEEDS to be accurately sourced, as far as I know the 1st marriage divorce rate is WELL below 50%, although it may be that high for people on subsequent marriages 
Zotel - the Stub Maker 22:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics source? Fact check! 

message: Disagreement between groups ABA Family Law section and the NCCUSL [] Michael H 34 (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: I removed the reference to the "astronomical increase" in divorces after the 1986 amendments to the Divorce Act. The word choice was inflammatory, and there was no citation.
Farside268 (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Michael H 34 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: History in Canada

message: * Feminist movement
    * Fathers' rights movement
    * Men's Rights
    * Misandry
Really?  I don't see how any of these relate to a No-Fault Divorce.  At the very least, I am pulling Misandry. 129.15.139.229 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of links in "See Also" 

message: There is way too much anti-no-fault divorce bias in this article as currently framed, in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE.  I am going to start purging some of that garbage soon.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess 

message: The first paragraph in United States History says no-fault divorce was introduced to america in august 2010, should this be 1969?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.116.148 (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States History   

message: This article seems to be too focused on the United States. The part about the United States is about two or three times the information of other countries. I think other countries deserve some coverage; otherwise, the heavy contributions to the United States make the United States no-fault divorce laws somehow more detailed or complex than other countries. If there is a legitimate reason for such, then by all means cite it. Sneazy (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too focused on the United States. 

message: >  No-Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union?
>  The Russian Effort To Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926, p. 108-114.
This is not a serious source, and any assertions cited to it need to be backed up with real sources or else removed.
I'm also highly skeptical about:
> The Soviet 1968 and California 1969 no-fault divorce laws bore many detailed similarities of terminology, substance, and procedure.
...which is of course the punch line to including the Atlantic scare stories in the first place.
Now, it *looks* like there's a real source here, No-Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union?, David Bolas, 14 Family L. J. 31 (1975), but I can't find anything about the author or the journal or the article. They hardly seem to exist outside of Wikipedia and various webpages compiled by pro-life activists in the United States. David Bolas does not exist on Google Scholar
Edit: Whomever copy-pasted the citation from whatever prolife blog didn't get the author's name right, it's Donald M. Bolas. here's an OCR copy from some blog if you don't have database access.
This article has been cited dishonestly. Yes, it compares the two laws, and points out their similarities, but leaving it at that is incredibly disingenuous, it also points out:
> In light of the foregoing major similarities, the differences are even more intriguing from the standpoint of possible mutual reception of each other’s best features. Before proceeding too far into the depths of such speculation, how-ever, one is cautioned that **an ideological chasm separates the two systems and the differences, beyond the similarities noted, have a distinctively ideological flavor and basis in many particulars.**
All this crap needs to be removed and whoever added it doesn't belong here.
Also lol
TiC (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully concur with your analysis. The users responsible may need to be blocked or suspended for clear violations of Wikipedia content policies, particularly WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

text: It appears that those parts were added in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-fault_divorce&oldid=563879662. I also noticed several issues with those parts, such as the link being dead and the reference for the 1969 claim being "ibid" when the previous citation was to a 1926 article. For now, I've added some tags and cleaned it up a little, but I'm not opposed to someone removing or significantly rewriting those parts if they are indeed unsupported by the sources. BreakfastJr (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unserious sources used to push "cultural marxism" type nonsense 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on No-fault divorce. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110310015014/http://blogs.consumerreports.org:80/money/2010/10/new-york-legal-no-fault-divorce-law-50-states-.html to http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2010/10/new-york-legal-no-fault-divorce-law-50-states-.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) 11:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on No-fault divorce. 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/20081013101546/http://www.articlealley.com/article_573525_18.html to http://www.articlealley.com/article_573525_18.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) 19:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified