Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil recognition of Jewish divorce
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Civil recognition of Jewish divorce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Listed on behalf of IP user. | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Original nomination: 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)[reply]
- Merge I agree, it's original research, merge with Get (divorce document). LiberatorLX (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I confess I'm guilty of giving it it's current topic. On a re-read the title should probably be: "The response of civil courts to the refusal of a Jewish husband to give his wife a Jewish divorce". Which is perhaps another way of saying that it's an essay (a badly written one at that) which was inserted into Wikipedia and then forgotten about. It should be deleted. It has nothing to do with the conflict of laws or civil recognition of Jewish divorce. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [Note: I've stricken and removed 212.50.182.151's personal attack on a user who has not edited here in 7 1/2 years. This is not an action I take lightly and I've never stricken someone else's comments before, but that was intolerable. None of this attack on this user is relevant to this discussion as his edits have not impacted the article for the better part of a decade.] -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had your way, the Turin Shroud would probably also never be tested! A series of bad editing dating back some 7 and 1/2 years ago, if discovered, should still be exposed, in my view, and not in any way to seek to punish the now retired editor, but in order to remove the bad edits, bad information and the simple rubbish from Wikipedia. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are more than welcome and, in fact, encouraged to speak to the content of this article in terms of its notability, availability of reliable sources to facilitate verifiability, redundancy of other articles, and the like. However, the screed I removed was a long and detailed indictment of one of the many contributors to that article, which is unacceptable. Thing is, you knew full well it was unacceptable when you wrote it as your comment plainly said: "I do indeed realise with much foreboding that each and every word of what I had written and about to submit can cause your most loyal, humble and obedient servant to be blocked, nay banned". Therefore, I shouldn't need to remind you, as I've already done on your talk page, that you are expected to discuss content, not people. Also, assume good faith and remain civil. Thank you. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And what of the rule of IAR, or would you rather just want to simply have me kept quiet at all costs instead? I don't know! Do you somehow know him privately? What I had written was precisely because I had edited Wikipedia previously, and that some Wikipedians, like members in some sort of a cult, have this increasingly ridiculous tendency of worshipping the internal rules of Wikipedia as if they were the Ten Commandments, the Torah, the Talmud, the Bible, the Qur'an and the Hadith and like to use them to insulate themselves from the Real World, and thereby themselves becoming more and more detached from it almost like in a fantasy World. The said normal norms of the said Real World (or at least the more civilised part thereof) expect that a whistle-blower like me ought not to be bullied into silence in the way that I am now being disgracefully treated. The said normal norms of the said Real World also provide that a person claiming to be Sir Peter, Bt. and Kt., Q.C., D.D., Ph.D., M.D. (aged 70 years), when he is in fact Master Paul, a school drop-out (aged 17 years), is not to be trusted, and that his works by default unreliable and liable to without the need for lengthy discussions be undone, retracted, withdrawn or reversed. A person who was not who he said he was, was surely himself acting in bad faith, and that the rule Wikipedia:AGF should therefore no longer apply, and neither should he (or his (misguided) supporters) expect the assumption of good faith; and if you cannot even see that, then I really do despair! The whole sorry business reads like an earlier version of the Essjay business, Johann Hari and the Wikipedia biography controversy, and you absolutely refuses to see it—and worse still, are refusing to stop shooting down desperately the messenger into silence! --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You already know what I would rather: Content, not people. You do seem to have a problem understanding that very simple concept though. On the other hand, I did find it somewhat amusing -- and ironic -- that in a response to me encouraging you to speak to the actual content of the article, you accuse me of attempting to silence you. *sigh* Although it is plainly obvious that you fail to see it, I am in fact trying to help you by attempting to steer you down more constructive paths. In case you haven't noticed, your current tack is not gaining any traction at all and you are undermining your own credibility. No one is taking you seriously at all. If you would stop for a moment, listen to what the community is trying to tell you and steer your efforts down more constructive avenues, you might find they get better results.-- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And what of the rule of IAR, or would you rather just want to simply have me kept quiet at all costs instead? I don't know! Do you somehow know him privately? What I had written was precisely because I had edited Wikipedia previously, and that some Wikipedians, like members in some sort of a cult, have this increasingly ridiculous tendency of worshipping the internal rules of Wikipedia as if they were the Ten Commandments, the Torah, the Talmud, the Bible, the Qur'an and the Hadith and like to use them to insulate themselves from the Real World, and thereby themselves becoming more and more detached from it almost like in a fantasy World. The said normal norms of the said Real World (or at least the more civilised part thereof) expect that a whistle-blower like me ought not to be bullied into silence in the way that I am now being disgracefully treated. The said normal norms of the said Real World also provide that a person claiming to be Sir Peter, Bt. and Kt., Q.C., D.D., Ph.D., M.D. (aged 70 years), when he is in fact Master Paul, a school drop-out (aged 17 years), is not to be trusted, and that his works by default unreliable and liable to without the need for lengthy discussions be undone, retracted, withdrawn or reversed. A person who was not who he said he was, was surely himself acting in bad faith, and that the rule Wikipedia:AGF should therefore no longer apply, and neither should he (or his (misguided) supporters) expect the assumption of good faith; and if you cannot even see that, then I really do despair! The whole sorry business reads like an earlier version of the Essjay business, Johann Hari and the Wikipedia biography controversy, and you absolutely refuses to see it—and worse still, are refusing to stop shooting down desperately the messenger into silence! --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are more than welcome and, in fact, encouraged to speak to the content of this article in terms of its notability, availability of reliable sources to facilitate verifiability, redundancy of other articles, and the like. However, the screed I removed was a long and detailed indictment of one of the many contributors to that article, which is unacceptable. Thing is, you knew full well it was unacceptable when you wrote it as your comment plainly said: "I do indeed realise with much foreboding that each and every word of what I had written and about to submit can cause your most loyal, humble and obedient servant to be blocked, nay banned". Therefore, I shouldn't need to remind you, as I've already done on your talk page, that you are expected to discuss content, not people. Also, assume good faith and remain civil. Thank you. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had your way, the Turin Shroud would probably also never be tested! A series of bad editing dating back some 7 and 1/2 years ago, if discovered, should still be exposed, in my view, and not in any way to seek to punish the now retired editor, but in order to remove the bad edits, bad information and the simple rubbish from Wikipedia. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [Note: I've stricken and removed 212.50.182.151's personal attack on a user who has not edited here in 7 1/2 years. This is not an action I take lightly and I've never stricken someone else's comments before, but that was intolerable. None of this attack on this user is relevant to this discussion as his edits have not impacted the article for the better part of a decade.] -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge. There's obvious original research, but that just needs to be trimmed; a good deal of content is verifiable and encyclopedic. Merging to the main article would overwhelm with civil matters an article on what is centrally a religious topic (even if it needs to be fleshed out more with sources in that line). Let's keep this article to preserve due weight, and fix its problems through normal editing. Alternately, a merge to Agunah may be acceptable, since all the cases seem related to that subtopic of the get (well, men and not just women, but even so); I still think keeping is preferable though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Valid topic, just needs to have orig research removed Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A valid topic with only original research and virtually free of inline citations still ought to be summarily removed, especially ones touching on the subject of Law; otherwise, how can we stop others from simply making all sorts of stuff up under the subject? When did the rule of Wikipedia:No original research suddenly become so negotiable these days? 212.50.182.151 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you just make that up? In any event, perhaps you failed to see the refs in the article that belie your statement that the article is bereft of anything but OR. OR should be removed, but this without question contains non-OR material. And it AfD is not for cleanup. If you have an OR problem, handle it by flagging OR, discussing it on a talkpage, and if appropriate removing it. AfD is the wrong course if the article also, as here, has non-OR RS ref support, and is a mixture of the two.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad hominem; and what you are saying is that the article should somehow be compulsorily salvaged after a course of a protracted, open-ended and lengthy discussion on the OR Board—in this case—by lay persons who are also not themselves jurists, legal theories, other legal academics, professors of law, lecturers of law, counselors, attorneys, Queen's Counsels, senior counsels, solicitor advocates, solicitors, barristers, advocates, commissioners of oaths, notaries public or students of law, and would therefore none the wiser. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I share with you a concern that at the Project we have editors -- who not only may not be trained in the law, but may be 12-year-olds -- rending their views on legal issues. I've seen the problem as being greatest in matters such as editors who are ignorant (and take not the time to become educated) opining on issues of copyright law. Lack of knowledge seems not to be a bar to expression of a view there. And no doubt, some non-lawyers like to "play lawyer" -- and unlike the real world, we let them play it here, and their "!vote" has the same value as that of an attorney. That said, when it comes to the above issues, I have a lesser concern, and I see the !votes of those who do not support deletion as being well-founded in policy and the instant facts. The key to focus on is not whether the article has OR (which can be excised), but whether the subject is notable and appropriate refs so-indicating reflect as much. That is the nature of AfD. --Epeefleche (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad hominem; and what you are saying is that the article should somehow be compulsorily salvaged after a course of a protracted, open-ended and lengthy discussion on the OR Board—in this case—by lay persons who are also not themselves jurists, legal theories, other legal academics, professors of law, lecturers of law, counselors, attorneys, Queen's Counsels, senior counsels, solicitor advocates, solicitors, barristers, advocates, commissioners of oaths, notaries public or students of law, and would therefore none the wiser. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you just make that up? In any event, perhaps you failed to see the refs in the article that belie your statement that the article is bereft of anything but OR. OR should be removed, but this without question contains non-OR material. And it AfD is not for cleanup. If you have an OR problem, handle it by flagging OR, discussing it on a talkpage, and if appropriate removing it. AfD is the wrong course if the article also, as here, has non-OR RS ref support, and is a mixture of the two.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A valid topic with only original research and virtually free of inline citations still ought to be summarily removed, especially ones touching on the subject of Law; otherwise, how can we stop others from simply making all sorts of stuff up under the subject? When did the rule of Wikipedia:No original research suddenly become so negotiable these days? 212.50.182.151 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (salvageable content and) Redirect this violation of WP:CONTENTFORKING to Get (divorce document)#Civil recognition of Jewish divorce. By the way, the Get (divorce document) is relatively skimpy and could use some beefing up with related materials. IZAK (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There unquestionably should be an article on civil recognition of Jewish divorce. This article has some references. I'm seeing allegations that one of the editors may have been playing tricks on us, and depending on how all that plays out, maybe drastic surgery will be needed. But the most drastic surgery imaginable is to trim the article to a bare list of references and a big note to rebuild it - not deletion. Wnt (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Citations numbers one to four, as they are at the time of the submission of this comment, are obviously primary sources and cannot themselves be counted but as one, and as something else and never as valid citations from reliable secondary or tertiary sources.
(2)The citations for the cases cited are more about the separation of the Church and the State and Church Disestablishment in the Province of Québec in Canada rather than it is about the Gett or Jewish divorce.
(3) Most of the citations and references are not so much about "civil recognition of Jewish divorce" as such, but "what happens when an Orthodox Jewish husband refuses to issue to his already-divorced and also Orthodox Jewish former wife a piece of signed and dated paper called a Gett, when the Jewish woman is unable, unlikely to or would not be able to secure a ruling of divorce from a Jewish Beth Din for whatever reason, and if she were to remarry another Orthodox Jew without the Gett, both parties would only not be able to do so validly in an Orthodox synagogue, and if they did so anyway by any other means, any issue from such a new matrimonial union would become within Orthodox Judaism as of the "mamzerim", or, in effect, illegitimates; and how the secular law in general and the Courts of the Secular Law in particular intervene in such a situation, and, [in possible violation of the "NPoV" rule] why the State should intervene, and also, why it should not intervene". A classical and the ultimate case of legal commentary; i.e., that is to say, original [legal] research; having no place in Wikipedia—and a very poorly-written legal commentary too! Legal commentaries also necessarily violate the concept of NPoV, and almost all cases, also copyright. Delete it. There is no denying about it, but only a person who has not actually himself read the article in question—but only the list on the bottom end of it, and without actually himself examining the citations—would actually think that the article is what the title says it is. It is not. TL; DR. Please, I beg of you all, would persons commenting at least actually read the concerned article in the first place! --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I've had some trouble trying to download that reference, but my feeling is that the specifics of the article content really doesn't matter. If you apply the most extreme solution I suggested (which is up to you and other editors of the article) you end up with a short list of helpful references, which is still enough to pass WP:GNG, and you can generate a stub from those. I would not cut out primary references from that list - they're still sources, even if you must use them with care. I feel quite certain that there are a much larger number of relevant sources you could add, though, and I encourage that. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Citations numbers one to four, as they are at the time of the submission of this comment, are obviously primary sources and cannot themselves be counted but as one, and as something else and never as valid citations from reliable secondary or tertiary sources.
- Keep or Merge. Per above keeps and merges. AfD is not for cleanup.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.