This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
@MarkBen1984:, before I get into the specifics of why I removed your edits, I want to point you to the principles guiding my edits, which you seem to be unaware of.
1. Any material added without a source can be summarily removed. Read WP:V: "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. "
2. Once something has been challenged and removed, you should not add it again without discussion on the talk page. Read WP:BRD - "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit"
3. If someone objects to newly added material, it is up to the person who added that material to gain consensus for their edits. Read WP:ONUS " The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
Now to the specifics: This section Critics have argued that providing simultaneous jurisdiction will cause parties to rush to file claims in their court of preference (civil or rabbinical), and by doing so creating a higher case load for courts. Critics have also raised concerns that religious courts may issue judgments that conflict principles in civil law (such as freedom of religion and equality of sexes, which do not exist in religious law). - lacks a source, so by point #1, I removed it. The new bill says says the Rabbinical court will only have jurisdiction if both parties consent, so this notion of people rushing to present cases to it (w/o the other side agreeing) is simply false. Red Slapper (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Red slapper, I undid you deletion here - I'm not sure if your reasoning is correct, as divorce proceedings can be overseen in the civil courts, while the act is divorce is in the authority of the rabbinical courts. In any event the sentence is citing the statements of an organization regarding the Bill, not bringing an independent assessment. MarkBen1984 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
