Talk:Divorce

Does anyone have any statistics for marriage and divorce. These generalizations do not look very precise. Alex756

How's that for a start on a statistics section? US only so far. --zandperl 14:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've gone through the stats section and revised and condensed it, trying to weed it down to relevant conclusions directly supported by the data. (Much of what was there when I found it misinterpreted the data or made claims far beyond what the data linked to supported; in some cases because someone apparently had an axe to grind.) I did try to preserve the links to relevant external studies, though, and tried to be more precise about what they actually said. (I added a study of two as well to fill in some gaps.)

This did eliminate a couple of potentially relevant numbers, such as how often the wife or the husband got custody of children. But I didn't see any solid data for them at a national level in the studies that were cited. If someone finds some solid, reliable stats from studies that *directly* speak to this issue, please add them. -- 130.91.116.49, 08 Apr 2005

---

What's an "Anglo-American" jurisdiction? Sounds like a South African company (see Harry Oppenheimer). Tiles 05:24 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Don't think English speaking is a good change, Indian might be considered English speaking and I don't think that the divorce trends there are similar to Anglo American countries (US Canada and United Kingdom). The term Anglo-American is used when discussing common law systems (though some like Indian are perhaps mixed systems as India does incorporate Hindu law into its jurisprudence). How 'bout western English speaking? Alex756

---

I'm not too concerned. I just thought that Anglo American was supposed to mean "English speaking". I note the use of commonwealth which goes well beyond the western English speaking world.

BTW is the stuff about France correct? I find it hard to believe that people with children avoid marriage or that French law was influenced by the Catholic church (Ireland I could believe).Tiles 04:56 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Sure, it sounds questionable. I removed a part "In countries such as France, people who have romantic relationships or children tend to avoid marriage, thus, divorce rate has remained low." I wrote this simply from my memory. Maybe we can put it again after we or anyone can show good evidence. -- Taku 05:15 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the world has changed much in the twentieth century. There was a famous case that is often quoted in French private international law treatises dealing with the concept fraude à la loi -- it was known as the Princess Bauffremont affair decided by the Cour de cassation [Civ. 18 mars 1878, S.78.1.193 (note Labbé)]. She obtained citizenship in Germany for the purpose of obtaining a divorce there and then remarried returning to France. (I think it was some kind of inheritance issue) The validity of her remarriage was called into question as divorce was not recognized in France, her remarriage was declared null as a fraude à la loi. Similar things happened in common law jurisdictions when people left to go to another country (or state) to get divorced because it was illegal in their country (the so called quickie Dominican divorce was an example of this). In common law conflict of laws it is known as evasion of the law. Alex756 05:23 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems pretty conclusive on the legal issue. I agree that we should park the social issue here until there is more evidence. Tiles 05:38 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Henry VIII wanted a *divorce* ?

Didn't Henry VIII want an annulment, not a divorce ? Especially as the sentence says he wanted it on the grounds of affinity -- I don't know that it makes any sense to say he wanted a divorce on the grounds of affinity.

recent Japan deletions

The comment on the Aug 31 edit was quite biased. Im not sure why it is relevant whether a contributor is having a custody problem in japan or not, nor how FWBOarticle would know whether that is true. Was the information deleted inaccurate, off topic, or biased? If not, which is my view, perhaps it should stay. Instead of deleting relevant information, I have referred to the site indicated and rewritten the section, as would have been a better way to edit it in the first place. If you (FWBOarticle) don't like the presentation, go ahead and fix it up in a more neutral manner. If you (FWBOarticle) disagree with the content, say so, and update it with more accurate content or in a more unbiased way. Simply deleting it implies that you, (FWBOarticle) are promoting an agenda and simply deleting information you do not like. Lets try to be more objective here, ok?

Ill try to find some statistics on divorce in Japan. Should be around since its a hot topic these days, with the rate going way up in recent years.

Jpnwatch Aug 31, 2004.

There is nothing wrong with presenting fact thought sticking to topic is prefered. Only problem is your source. It help if you can provide citation not from agenda site. You have to find two souce. One is to say some country doesn't recognise Japanese divorce. The other is to show that the reason for this non recognition is due to problem with Japanese divorce procedure. FWBOarticle 08:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and it help if you can provide source for the case of forgery.

I have also removed links. However, I have no objection for listing those links as external. In Wikipedia, that is much prefered way as some external links disappear afterward. FWBOarticle 08:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Certainly some content depends on the subject knowledge of contributors. And in such cases, it may be equally your responsibility to disprove things you don't agree with, based on your own expertise. This "agenda site" has unique information not found elsewhere, and quite honestly, it would help if you would read thru the site before challenging issues. At some point you need to trust the expertise of the people who put that site together. That said, here are several references that come up in a quick google search that may answer some of your concerns:

Divorce By Mutual Consent not accepted by all countries

• http://www.city.kamogawa.chiba.jp/english/for%20homepage/web%20version%20of%20pamphlet2.pdf

• http://www.kiea.jp/Divorce.html

Forging signatures on divorce forms and anti-divorce form

• http://www.nic-nagoya.or.jp/english/survivaltip/survival_tips_0201.htm

• http://www.jca.apc.org/migrant-net/English/q_and_a/qa_marriage_e.html

And here is a reference to someone who proved a forged signature in court. The person mentioned in the article is the founder of another organization and his case is well know. Youcan contact this organization to get in touch with him personally. crcjapan.com

• http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20001213b2.htm

So Im going to put back the original information. If you dont like it, please find some of your own evidence to disprove it before making further edits.

And finally, if you disapprove of external links in the text, you should be consistent. There are quite a few other external links in there also. I speculate that you did not removethem also since they do not appear to be on your "agenda." A constructive way to approach your concern would be to remove ALL external links and rewrite them appropriately in the external links section. Since I am following the existing format in this article, Ill leave that task up to you.

Ah, I have no problem with the facts that forgery occurs in Japan or elsewhere. Problem with your sentence is that you try to link that with the fact that particular type of divorce in Japan is not recognised internationally. This you fail to provide any source except your speculation. Wikipedia is not really a place to advance individual POV. Rather it is place to introduce readers to various general opinion with proper attribution. Also, it is you who assert certain existence of fact. Burden of proof is on you not on me. As of me deleting link to your web page. I actually have no objection for your web page and information it provide. Just that it is much better if it is separated as external links as reference. Oh, for you not being able see your kids, that I sympathise. FWBOarticle 10:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As of external links, firstly it is generally discouraged however it is not explicitly prohibited. It is usuall being let off when it is linked to stable site such as BBC or government website. Small website is considered much less reliable and that is why it is better to be listed as separate link. However I have no objection for the link to be listed immediately after the section rather than at the bottom of the page. FWBOarticle 10:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And one more thing, trying to promote particular website is not something which is encouraged. FWBOarticle 10:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

Contributed on September 10:

One cause considered, while not conclusive, arises from studies[1] described in Kristen O'Hara's book Sex as Nature Intended It. The book explains that relationships, which rely on strong levels of intimacy, may fail in part due to the physical effects of circumcision on sexual intercourse. Described in detail by Ronald Goldman's work [2], divorce rates in various nations are compared and strongly linked to male circumcision rates just 25 years prior. O'Hara's book describes that, in the case of circumcised intercourse, levels of satisfaction may fall over the years of marriage. This effect may have been known as early as the 12th century, as described by the philosopher Moses Maimonides. Among other factors, this factor may contribute to some couples divorcing due to loss of sexual fulfillment in one or both spouses.

Circumcision as a cause for divorce? That explains why divorce rates are so high, I suppose.  :-) --Ardonik.talk()^* 15:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Some people believe loss of fulfillment contributes to divorce (not the sole cause as you imply). The US is quite high in both statistics. If you would bother to read the books mentioned, they are only one perspective with clear historical references. You are welcome to add more to the article if you wish. I am not against the theory that there is no connection, but I believe both sides have merit. DanP 16:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course you do. For you, circumcision is one of the world's great evils, and you'll seize any chance to denigrate it.
If a scientific study can provide evidence of a positive correlation between circumcision and divorce rates, adding a mention and a cite will be fine, but all you have provided is a link to an informal survey. A subsection in Genital Integrity entitled ==Circumcision and divorce== or ==Societal impact of circumcision== would in my opinion be more suitable for this.
No more free rides, DanP. The circumcision wars are over. --Ardonik.talk()^*

I respectfully disagree. Goldman's work was also mentioned, which I would hope you'd find time to read, even if you disagree with it. Scientific studies of divorce, eh? That's a pretty tough standard to explain human relationships. I would ask you to replace this particular paragraph though, as it's one matter which I am very familiar. It was never presented as an absolute statement of scientific fact. DanP 22:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We need tough standards! Without them we get POV. Speculation without any evidence that circumcision has any effect on divorce has no place in this article. I don't believe both sides have merit at all. i don't see any merit whatsoever in the "circumcision causes divorce" argument. The US is also quite high on gun ownership. If I were to put forward the 'theory' that gun ownership causes divorce should it go in the article? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't say the merit was irrefutable, but I have seen more than one relationship fall apart. To go extreme with forcing a tough standard would require deleting most of the article. Take the statement: "In some countries, women need to wait longer than men before remarrying to avoid confusion about paternity." That is presented with zero scientific evidence as to paternity being the reason. The article is full of what one person thinks and what another might do. NPOV only asserts that nobody is absolutely right in their chosen view, and Goldman's book is more than a tiny shred of evidence that the opinion exists. If there is a way to "water down" my paragraph to be NPOV, saying other people believe this theory is wrong or sheer coincidence, please do so without just deleting the whole paragraph. Regarding gun ownership, many people believe it's tied to crime rates. I don't believe that at all and find it an unjustified tactic, but the gun politics article clearly says some believe "that gun control legislation may reduce violent crime". It's just a statement of perspectives that exist, and I do not judge that. I support such statements being in Wikipedia, despite my strong disagreement with the underlying assertion, because they are presented as a "sociological theory" and no more. DanP 16:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But there is some evidence to back those claims up. The violent crimes rates of the UK can be compared to that of the US. Now since the UK and the US are broadly similar societies, with similar non violent crime rates then it is reasonable to conclude that that differences in violent crime rates are due to different gun regulations. I'm pretty sure this comparision has actually been done but i dont know the actual results, and anyway i don't want to stray too far off topic. As far as I am aware, there have been no actual comparisions of divorce rates between similar groups of men where one group were circumcised and the other not. As far as I can tell the 'theory' is out and out speculation, with no evidence whatsoever. As such it should not go into the article. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then please explain why the majority of the divorce article goes without that standard? The vast majority is pure speculation, including the paragraph prior to the disputed one which I, in fact, entered. The disputed paragraph was listed with repeated evidence, both historical and contemporary, with regard to this viewpoint. For the guns issue, no it's not reasonable to make that leap - it's POV. One counterexample POV is that violent crime has suddenly gone up in many places where guns were restricted, and that violent crimes prevented by guns never get counted in official reports. I really don't care who is "right" on that, because both sides have explained their completely unproven conclusions in Wikipedia. Encouraging multiple perspectives is a standard NPOV has. Deleting the disputed paragraph in this article because my evidence perceived as weak, yet permitting the prior paragraph which I submitted with zero evidence, is rather POV isn't it? I think divorce is linked enough to long-term fulfillment in the bedroom. At least it is in some people's minds, and I think that merits some attention here. Even if circumcision is not specifically mentioned, we do not live in a society where sex and divorce are so separate that it requires empirical data to link them. Maybe we need a discussion about the POV "women are generally the financial victims of divorce" under the Social and psychological issues section of this article. Not one shred of evidence or neutrality there. But I didn't just delete it. DanP 18:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article is a mess

Hello:

Is it just me or is this article a mess?

Unfortunately I don't have the time or energy to do some research on my own on divorce law and clean this mess up. My specialty isn't family law.

It seems like we have a whole bunch of laypeople working on this article, including several pissed-off divorced fathers, and relatively few law-trained people.

I suspect the reason no family law people have bothered to clean this up is because they are too busy dealing with their crazy clients. Family law is well-known among lawyers as the most stressful type of law. Most legal disputes can be reduced to awards of money, but it's hard to do that with kids or with property that may be of great sentimental value to both spouses.

--Coolcaesar 08:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)