Talk:Legal responses to agunah

message: Good work, David. Some references (legal and halakhic ones) would be great.
I'm starting to wonder whether we shouldn't put all material on divorce in Judaism on one page. That makes more sense than the present construction. This should mention all the basics, e.g. that a man should not divorce a woman against her will, the problem of the agunah, and indeed the secular legal solutions that have been developed. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am slowly adding to the material on Conflict of Laws and was somewhat surprised when I came to the Get, having expected to find a comprehensive body of material. Well, never mind. I have added more referenced material as requested and hope this satisfies your expectations. David91 04:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Start of article

message: The material on the "get as a document page" would easily fit into the "get in conflict" page and I am happy to do it if this is the will of the majority. What do you all think?  David91 11:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be separate. As you stated below, the conflict article is focused on conflict of laws issue, e.g. how other legal systems treat the Get. The get decree topic is focused on the Get document itself, not the conflicts issue. It is also a Judaism topic.  Joaquin Murietta 06:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: If this article is not merged, I suggest the categories be edited to include some hint that this this a Judaism-related topic in view of these comments  and my reply . Also, can the reference to Get (conflict) be clarified on the disambiguation page Get. Joaquin Murietta 15:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: This is a specialist law page and the fact that, within the general remit of Conflict of Laws it happens to be talking about the get does not, with respect, make this subordinate to the religious description of the process. Suppose that I went to a page in the Category:languages and added a main page reference to Judaism simply because one of the languages mentioned was Hebrew language, this would not be constructive. Hence, I am firmly of the opinion that the relationship between the two pages mentioning the get is one of equality, each of importance and significance within its own category. As a compromise, I have offered different wording as a header which I invite you to respect. Of no significance is my view that it would not be necessary to insert a reciprocal reference on the other page. David91 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a hierarchy, and the categorisation should not play a role. The whole problem of a conflict of laws arises because Judaism has a get in the first place. I would actually be much happier if everything were to be covered on one page. JFW |  T@lk 15:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You're being too formal. Let's reverse the question: why should this page not be merged with the Get (divorce document) article? JFW | T@lk 02:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A claim that law is only a social instrument and comes only comes from a state -- i.e. that there is no such thing as religious law and that religious claims about its origin are false. -- is highly POV and Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy prohibits our encyclopedia from taking an editorial position on this issue. Similarly, a claim that the inclusion of religious material would "devalue" secular material is an example of a lack of neutrality, which our WP:NPOV policy requires. Accordingly, the existence of two articles, one of which would be based on claims that a practice is secular in nature and the other that it is religious, appears to be a violation of wikipedia's WP:POVFORK policy. All claims about the nature of a get need to be in a single article. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The issue of main page status

message: Since only three people seem interested in the issue of merging and by a margin of at least 2:1 we agree that a merger is not appropriate, I have removed the merge tag. David91 06:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of merge tag

message: Should this  topic be renamed Get (conflict of laws) ?? Joaquin Murietta 15:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A redirect should be fine. JFW | T@lk 02:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You're again being too formal. I was suggesting to Joaquin that we should create a redirect at Get (conflict of laws) to point to this article. JFW | T@lk 05:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We should not need David's approval to generate a redirect. In response to his query, there is no particular reason to object against "conflict" in the title, but the majority of divorces has at least an element of personal conflict, making the title of this legal article at least somewhat confusing. With the use of redirects (and perhaps the "" template) I think this can be resolved without difficulty. JFW | T@lk 07:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming this topic? 

message: While I don't disagree with the author's sentiments about morality, per NPOV policy statements about what is moral should be attributed and sourced; the article itself shouldn't be making claims that views the author disagrees with are immoral. --Shirahadasha 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morality claim and [[NPOV]] 

message: This is ridiculous. We don't refer to HaRav HaGaon Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt"l or any other gedolim with such title on Wikipedia. To do so for Lieberman is inconsistant with policy and, in my opinion, probably an attempt to instigate conflict. --Yodamace1 12:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hagaon?

message: --Sagbliss 04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The editors other than perhaps Farmborough have no understanding of the entire issue ===

message: --Sagbliss 04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3) You cannot demand that other editors wait for you to finish your edits and chastise or revert anything that is not your own. You do not own the article. Bruno23 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11109

message: --Sagbliss 04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: =I DEMAND EXCELLENCE AND ACCURACY IN REPORTING AND WRITING===ANYTHING ELSE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE

message: Substantial parts of this case are not relevant to the conflict and should probably be removed.  Also the article must conform to WP:BLP. Rich Farmbrough, 09:10 12 October 2007 (GMT). 
=================
--Sagbliss 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes yes.  The Supreme court is supreme.  And it's also possible that the Canadian Supreme Court will affirm the appeals court decision and end this matter in Marcovitz's favor.  I am not sure why this is relevant, but it demonstrates that Sagbliss lacks a neutral point of view in this matter.  There's an irony in all of this case.  Bruker's adulterous affair during her marriage suggests her devotion to orthodox marriage was not pure - I'm not sure how many Rabbis would approve of that expression of Judaic faith.  So why then would Bruker be so concerned about a get?  Perhaps Sagbliss can help us understand? CANADA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WESTERN WORLD NOT TO ORDER SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 
====TO RICHARD FARMBROUGH=====
Go to http://www.ledevoir.com/2006/04/28/107792.html--Ms. Bruker was not an Orthodox Jew but a Conservative Jewess and all of you editors who I imagine do not have an inkling about Jewish law, secular law and the issue of abusing women by withholding a barrier to remarriage should really read this article. Farmbrough was write that portions of the Court of Appeals Law is irrelevant. Further, all of you should educate yourself on the options available to women to circumvent the problem of the agunah. The article as is is written and currently posted is offensive inaccurate and false.  
--Sagbliss 04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I find ironic is that this woman was carrying on an extramarital affair which is obviously completely forbidden by Jewish law yet sought damages for being unable to marry in accordance with Jewish law.  Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.80.74 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian case

message: Go to http://www.ledevoir.com/2006/04/28/107792.html--Ms. Bruker was not an Orthodox Jew but a Conservative Jewess and all of you editors who I imagine do not have an inkling about Jewish law, secular law and the issue of abusing women by withholding a barrier to remarriage should really read this article. Farmbrough was write that portions of the Court of Appeals Law is irrelevant. Further, all of you should educate yourself on the options available to women to circumvent the problem of the agunah. The article as is is written and currently posted is offensive inaccurate and false.  
--Sagbliss 04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TO RICHARD FARMBROUGH=

message: --Sagbliss 04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find ironic is that this woman was carrying on an extramarital affair which is obviously completely forbidden by Jewish law yet sought damages for being unable to marry in accordance with Jewish law.  Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.80.74 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: YOU SINEBOT ARE OFFENSIVE AND YOUR EMOTIONALLY CHARGED COMMENTS HAVE BEEN PRINTED AND SAVED. IT IS SUGGGESTED THAT YOU CHECK THE LAWS ON SLANDER AND LIBEL AND THE ARTICLE REFERRED TO ABOVE. NO EDITOR ON WIKIPEDIA IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT. YOUR BEHAVIOUR IS VINDICTIVE. INTERNET LAW IS EMERGING TRUTH AND ETHICS HOWEVER DO PREVAIL. AND IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT IT IS DISCRIMINATORY TO BLOCK SOMEONE FROM USING THIS SITE SINCE IT IS CONTRARY TO POLICY TO BLOCK ADDITION OF INFORMATION

message: Recent out of order and place posts to this page have made it very confusing to read and contribute.  I'm reluctant to try to repair the damage since it will obfuscate who's saying what.  For those who want to understand previous conversations, I suggest you walk through the history of the page. I propose that any new points be added with a new header AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. Bruno23 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section for Ongoing Discussion 

message: To the admins, please change this copy in section 2.1.1 from:
:"In 1969, they married in an orthodox ceremony. Subsequently they adopted children after Ms. Bruker was unable to conceive. In April of 1980, Ms. Bruker initiated divorce proceedings. Unknown to Mr. Marcovitz, she had had an affair, become pregnant, and in 1978, had an abortion."
to
:"In 1969, they married in an orthodox ceremony. Subsequently they adopted children after Ms. Bruker was unable to conceive. In April of 1980, Ms. Bruker initiated divorce proceedings."
While the removed sentence was helpful to support Bruker's claims of damages in the case (proof that she was indeed able to conceive which supports her claims that she was prevented from having more children), it's secondary to the broader issues of whether civil courts can intervene in what was a religious promise.  The reference does not change.  Bruno23 17:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ~ Riana ⁂ 14:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Edit 

message: This is a repair of bullets from a previous version.
The last part of Section 2.4 (United Kingdom) now reads:
--------
The present rules derive from the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 (as implemented by the Family Proceedings (Amendment) Rules 2003), which applies if a decree nisi has been granted but not made absolute and the parties: 
:(a) were married in accordance with:
  (i) any other prescribed religious usages; and
:(b) must co-operate if the marriage is to be dissolved in accordance with those usages.
Please restore it to the version, dated 13:59, 23 October 2007:
--------
The present rules derive from the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 (as implemented by the Family Proceedings (Amendment) Rules 2003), which applies if a decree nisi has been granted but not made absolute and the parties: 
:(a) were married in accordance with:
::(i) the usages of the Jews, or
::(ii) any other prescribed religious usages; and 
:(b) must co-operate if the marriage is to be dissolved in accordance with those usages.
Thanks. 198.23.5.10 13:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than continuing to request admin help to edit the article, please resolve the issues that led to protection and then request unprotection at WP:RFPP. The goal of protection because of a dispute is to freeze the page in its current version until the matter is settled through discussion. This requested change is not the minor sort of change that can be made upon request; it's a significant content change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 

message: After reading Sagbliss' many comments on how women are victimized by men who refuse to grant a Get, I did some more reading in Wikipedia.  It turns out it's an equal opportunity tactic.  Here's an interesting quote from the  Get article:
:"While it is widely assumed that the problem lies primarily in men refusing to grant the get to their wives and that it is a widespread issue, in Israel, figures released from the chief rabbinate show that men are equally victimized and that the numbers are actually a couple of hundred on each side." 
Nothing like published and verifiable information from reputable sources to help wade through the rhetoric.Bruno23 11:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No surprise, women and men are both victims 

message: Instead of concentrating exclusively on the relationship between civil divorce and Jewish divorce, I think the article should be expanded to explore the relationship between civil divorce and all religious proceedings relating to marriage.  John Paul Parks (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be challenging given the specificity of the topic.  A "Get" by definition refers only to the annulment of a Jewish marriage.  Perhaps a new, and broader topic would cover your proposed range of exposition.Bruno23 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Favoritism to a Particular Religious Group??

message: "At the first trial, the court found that the matter could be argued before the civil courts and that Mr. Marcovitz had breached his contractual obligation. He awarded Ms. Bruker $47, 500 in damages.": 'He' awarded? He as in the male person? Or is something along the lines of "Ms. Bruker was awarded" intended? Knotwork (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  Been corrected. Bruno23 (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: To the editors of this article: FYI, this article is incorrect. The Supreme Court Case in Canada, December 14, 2007, is now the law. The date of the rehearing is also really not relevant. The case from the lower court and the Court of Appeals should not be cited.  Look at http://wiselaw.blogspot.com/2008/01/religious-divorce-and-legal-obligation.html
The paragraph at the beginning of the article with the definition of what a get is is also incorrect. This article is about what is being done in the civil courts concerning a religious issue which is why the Supreme COurt case is relevant because it is the justiciability of a civil contract with religious overtones.
The definition that is on the site is as follows:
A get or gett (גט) is the Jewish form of divorce which, when one is available in the state of residence, is supervised by a Beth Din (בית דין), a rabbinical court. This page deals with the Conflict of Laws implications. For a discussion of the purely religious implications, see religious divorce.
A get is only available from a Bet Din. There are Bet Dins wherever there are Jews. It has nothing to do with one's state residence. If one lives in a country without many Jews, one can apply to a community with Jews. 
The reason that the Supreme Court case of Canada was so important is that it deals with a religious obligation which is usually not justiciable in the civil courts. But in the Bruker case, there was a civil judgment which Mr. Marcovitz violated. See http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=597  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrinascat (talk • contribs) 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment misses the point that the Bruker case was about the very question of whether religious or secular law applies.  Even though the Canadian Supreme court found that Marcovitz should have complied with the civil contract, the issue very much involved the religious Get.  Anyone who reads Marcovitz's argument would know that. Even the majority Supreme court decision takes pains to explain why this doesn't infringe on religious freedom.  This is pretty obvious.  I'm surprised you're unable to see the intersection between the Bruker case and the article.  Furthermore, since this is an instance of evolving law, why would we remove the lower court decisions and eliminate the context - especially given there was a minority view on the Supreme Court that sided with Marcovitz?Bruno23 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page is outdated--The Canadian Supreme Court Case moots out the Court of Appeals case and the Lower Court in Canada 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Contract (conflict) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 20:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Civil recognition of Jewish divorce is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil recognition of Jewish divorce  until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.</br></br></br>Concern, reason or rationale: It is an original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document). 212.50.182.151 (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Civil recognition of Jewish divorce]] for deletion