Talk:Grounds for divorce (United States)

Creation
I wrote this article as it was requestedDan 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! Added some sectioning, stub tag, wikilinks, link to the main article on no-fault divorce, etc. JubalHarshaw 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Edu project
Group 2 for Professor Konieczny's Sociology of Marriage class will cover the following topics:
 * Fault grounds
 * adultery
 * cruelty
 * abandonment
 * mental illness
 * criminal conviction
 * No-fault grounds
 * Separation for a certain period of time
 * Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage relationship ((irreconcilable differences//incompatibility of temperament))
 * What states accept this? MD & VA…
 * Shift of the acceptance of these
 * arguments for & against


 * OTHER GROUNDS
 * Alcohol/ drug abuse
 * Impotency beginning from the time of the marriage & continuing until the time of the divorce, such that the marriage was never consummated
 * Failure to support 1’s spouse even though 1 has the ability to do so
 * UNUSUAL GROUNDS
 * Joining a religious sect that destroys the marriage (New Hampshire)
 * Infection 1’s spouse with a venereal disease (Illinois)


 * Defenses to grounds
 * The accused spouse was not actually at fault (for fault grounds)
 * condonation//reconciliation
 * recrimination
 * provocation
 * Spouses were not actually separated for the requisite period of time (for no-fault grounds)
 * There is still a chance of reconciliation (for no-fault grounds)


 * Most common causes for divorce in the countries=
 * adultery
 * desertion
 * cruelty
 * conviction of crime

RESOURCES:
 * Choudhri, Nihara K. The Complete Guide to Divorce Law. New York: Citadel, 2004. Print.
 * Haman, Edward A. How to File Your Own Divorce. 4th ed. Naperville, IL: Sphinx Pub., 2003. Print.

--Naf24 (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC) --Naf24 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC) --Nas132 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC) --Ntj2 (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Statsky, William P. Family Law the Essentials. 2, Illustrated, revised, Cengage Learning pub., 2003. Print.
 * Ventura, John, and Reed, Mary Divorce for Dummies. 3, Illustrated, For Dummies Pub., 2009. Print.
 * Parkman, Allen M. Good Intentsions Gone Awry: No-Fault Divorce and The American Family. Illustrated, Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 2000. Print.
 * Ehrlich, Shoshanna J. Family Law for Paralegals. 4th ed. Aspen Publishers Online Pub., 2007. Print
 * Clarke-Stewart, Alison. Divorce: Causes and Consequences. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. Print.
 * Lichtenberger, James Pendleton. Divorce: A Study in Social Causation. New York: Nabu, 2010. Print.

I will be researching and providing information on the topics listed under “fault grounds” as well as the defense, “the accused spouse was not actually at fault” and the key terms that go along with it. --Naf24 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I will be researching and providing information on the topics under "No Fault Grounds" as well as the defense, "There is still a chance of reconciliation".--Nas132 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I will research and supply information about the topics under "other/unusual grounds" and the "Spouses were not actually separated for the requisite period of time" defense. Ntj2 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good, both the outline and the references (reliability, relevance). Keep it up! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review-Natalie Fisher
After reviewing many of the wiki pages that the other groups are working on, I have come up with some ideas we might want to think about incorporating on our page. Group 1 is creating a wiki page on College dating; when I first analyzed the groups page there was a picture on the wiki page. However, I believe there must have been a problem with that specific picture that they had to remove it. But, I think that by adding a picture it grabs people's attention and makes them more interested in reading the page (at least thats how I felt when looking at their page). We would just need to find a picture that is acceptable and has all the necessary copyright information.

In addition, on many of the pages under certain section headings there are links that say "see also;" like on Group 6's page, Single parent, under the section that is labeled "Effects," it says See also: Implications of divorce & "Implications of divorce" is linked to that wiki page. I think this will be very useful for us to include in our page as well because some of our topics/grounds we are covering have their own pages that may include information that we don't happen to include in our page, such as Irreconcilable differences.

--Naf24 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Review!
Hi! I read your article, and it is really interesting! I never knew there was anything more than just a basic divorce. I only have two suggestions: 1.) maybe remove some of the parenthesis int the first section about no-fault 2.) perhaps add in abuse (physical/emotional) to the section of reasons for fault divorces (if this applies...I am not sure it is a formal reason or not) Your article looks really interesting--great job so far, guys! BonnieNoel (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bonnie for the suggestions! I am actually covering the Fault divorces section and abuse actually fits right in under the ground, "Cruelty." It is a formal reason so we definitely will be covering it, good thinking!--Naf24 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Review~Natalie Sebula
I agree that our wiki page could use acceptable pictures. I have noticed the "see also" section, and that was another good suggestion that would add more helpful information on grounds for divorce to our viewers. Some of the suggestions that I would like to make is that I think we just need to add our information under our headings, use reference/cite links, and add more internal links to our sections. I have to do more research on external links but if we could add more information/links under the external link section I think that would enhance our wiki page as well. I think our wiki page is starting to come together nicely. --Nas132 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review
hey there!!

After reading your article it seems like you all have found a lot of insightful and interesting information on the topic of divorce, so I applaud you for the work you've done thus far. Something I would like to suggest to you is possibly adding a section about how divorce effects the family regarding fault divorce and no fault divorce (if there is separate information on how each individual type effects the family).

Other than that I'd say your article looks great so far and I'm excited to see how it turns out in the end.

Mjc112 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review
Hey guys first I would like to say your article is coming along VERY well. It is definitely much farther than my groups currently haha. After looking it over there were two minor things that I figured I would point out, more reference related than anything. First I thought I would ask about reference 5 and 6. They seem to be the same reference (I may be wrong though since I was not the one that looked these references up), but provided they are the same reference, it might be worth combining the two into 1 since the only difference I saw was the pages used in each of them. Second, I had noticed that there seemed to be a trend of 1 reference per section, though I am sure that is just while you guys are searching for more more references to "buff up" each section with. Anyhow your page is looking terrific!

Kgw2 (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Review: Nicole Johnson
I agree that our article would benefit from greater picture use and an expansion of references (and a reference list 'clean-up'). Based on what I have seen on some other people's pages, I think adding a 'history of divorce' section, and some relevant statistics (e.g. demographics, trends, effects on the family and society at large) could potentially make this article even better. Perhaps we could also provide more inside and outside links related to our topic. Ntj2 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review
Hey guys I have to say I think your outline is pretty solid and think you have a good amount of sections to describe your topic accurately and in an interesting way as well. It looks like a lot of these topics have legal implications so I think going to the Law Library might help you to get a better picture with court case examples or what ever you want to look up. I would say though to keep it interesting try no to go the legal route too much unless you think its essential in getting your message across. I agree with another review I saw in maybe making an abuse (physical/emotional) section in there which can sum up a lot of the other things you have listed. Other than that great progress. Davidjk43 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Davidjk43

Possible chance for front page exposure
You are off to a really nice start. Your article is now eligible for the main page exposure, but to make it so, you need to fix a number issues:
 * need to fix:


 * empty sections: they must have some content
 * stub template should be removed
 * wrong level of headings: see Manual of Style/Headings
 * may need fixing for DYK, will need fixing for GA:


 * insufficient reference density: you should reference each sentence, not only each para
 * globalize: do the grounds for divorce exist outside US? The article needs to answer this, and if the answer is yes, at least attempt a brief coverage of this in major world countries.

Finally, watchlist and make sure to answer promptly to issues raised by a DYK reviewer at Template:Did you know nominations/Grounds for divorce. DYKs are time sensitive, and a few days of your inaction will cost you your chance at a front-page exposure, with comes with many thousands of article views, and (from me), with the 5 extra credit points. Good luck, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input on what needs to be fixed. I have removed the stub. Also, I have changed the headings; did that fix the issue with those?
 * I have also removed the empty sections and intend on adding information for those topics by the end of this week.
 * As for references, what if the information we are finding for that section comes from that one source? How are we to make citations for each line?
 * --Naf24 (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Headings have improved, good job. You still need to decapitalize most titles, see Capitalization. For references, you need to have the ref tags after each sentence. See for example an article on Repertoire of contention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 05:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful suggestions. Natalie, thank you for acting fast on fixing the problems. I have a question with the references. Why are the authors names coming up in red on the ones that I did? is there a problem with them? what is a stub? --Nas132 (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference question answered here. You can also ask for help at places mentioned in the syllabus (such as Help desk). On the subject of things in the syllabus, the term stub should be mentioned and linked there too, but for your convenience, see Stub. I hope those help, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What are these cite errors for?? I have tried :everything to get them to go away but nothing works --Naf24 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted above in the linked discussion, you have unused references (as in: ref name=something, where in fact no ref name=something is used anywhere in the text). I've now removed three of those errors, see . How did I find what to remove? Easy: the ref error gives you the name of the reference, I just looked for it in the list and removed it. For example, one of the red errors noted that the "The_Comple_Guide_to_Divorce_Law" reference is unused, so I just searched for it in the list and deleted it - and voila, one error message went away. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC) PS. The errors are a result of the edits starting with this, where reference tags where removed from text, but not from the reference section. As you can see, the original text had a reference which was subsequently removed (it appears on the left, but not on the right). And lo and behold, the result is that the first error occurs here. As more references were partially removed, the number of errors started to go up. Wikipedia is thus complaining, in plain words, that "you list a reference in the reference section, but you are not using it in text". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Got it thanks! I removed them and replaced them with corrected codes, but was not aware that the codes I remove stay in the reference list. So now I am full aware and won't let it happen again. --Naf24 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In some articles most of the code is moved to the reference list. I support this, as it makes the main text more readable and scary. But yes, that means that to fully kill a reference, one has to search for all instances to it, in the text and in the ref list (fortunately, browsers have search function, so that is usually easy). See if you can add the references to individual sentences - the sooner you do this, the less confusion may arise in the weeks or months to come (when you try to recall where a given piece of info came from). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  19:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Good job increasing the density of referencing, this is increasingly looking like a professional article. Some other items to look into: 1) add more blue links where appopriate 2) some headings don't sound encyclopedic - avoid full sentences or questions in titles 3) "Shift of acceptance of these" - reword, lose "these" 3) try to address the issues noted on the templates. Keep up the good work! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 03:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that you have a review at Template:Did you know nominations/Grounds for divorce. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent job with recent expansion, this looks very good. Here's a suggestion for future improvement, and to make your life easier: when citing books, you can use the http://reftag.appspot.com tool, and link to specific pages on Google Books. For example, you cite p.190 from Good intentions gone awry : no-fault divorce and the American family. Using that tool, you can copy the page link and generate a citation without the need to fill in the cite template manually, one that will link to the page in question. Such a link is useful, both for the readers and for the editors like yourselves, since you could quickly go to the book and verify things (or look for clarification/material to expansion) even without having the book present with you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I used it to add 4 new sources. --Naf24 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded to the person that wrote on Template: Did you know nominations/Grounds for divorce. However I have a question about one of the comments. The person stated that they think our page is not well referenced. How is our page not well referenced when we have a reference after each sentence? or am I misunderstanding this person. Thanks --Nas132 (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to ask them for details (if you cc them on their talk page they'll reply faster), but I think their comment referred to the old version of this article from 3 days ago. Since then, you've done a lot to improve the referencing. A minor comment looking at the newest version: overuse of bolding (and full capitalized words), see Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  22:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Article moved to Grounds for divorce (United States law)
I moved the article Grounds for divorce to Grounds for divorce (United States law) because it was clearly written from the American perspective. All other cultural practices were tacked on as an afterthought, not incorporated from the beginning. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In carrying out the move, I removed the following text which may be used to form new articles discussing "grounds for divorce" in other countries:


 * "It is imperative to state a variety of reasons for the breakdown of marriage globally and primitive communities to some extent. For example, Sudan is a remote place where adultry is a common practice. However, In Sudan adultry is considered a ground for divorce.

In more established countries one of the frequent issues of family law is the merits and demerits of fault-based and non-fault-based grounds for divorce. A majority of countries and states have been accepting no-fault grounds for divorce including numerous of grounds beyond the breakdown of the marriage. Several legal systems do not want to eliminate fault completely and reserve it in limited situations.

In other countries like Switzerland they terminated fault as one of the grounds for divorce and recommened divorce by mutual consent. In Germany a 1 or 3 year sepration plus a mutual agreement will compose as a ground for divorce.

In China there ancient law consisted of three types of divorce that were recognized: 1) Mutual consent; 2) repudiation "seven grounds for men and three grounds for women"; 3)"intolerable acts against principles of conjugality." In 1981 Chinas marriage law was based on the assumtion that marriage is established of of love, understanding, and mutual respect, which will conclude of loyalty and dedication to the nation."


 * References for above section

I hope this helps those who invested effort in the attempt to globalize the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that this is added to the grounds for divorce (now a redirect here), and the current article is summarized there (per WP:SUMMARY). This would count towards extra credit if it is done by the students (hint :) ). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

separation section
The following section is confusing:

"Separation

Marriage partners who are living apart have grounds for no-fault divorce.[4] Like Louisiana, various states have statutes requiring the parties to live apart from one another for a certain predetermined period of time.[4][18] The reason the time limitation exists is to see if the couple can reconcile.[4] For example, differing from Louisiana, Pennsylvania state law does not permit legal separation.[19]"

Where does the reference to Louisiana suddenly come from? Was it mentioned before?

-KaJunl (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

tone
this seems point-of-view: "If one decides to file a divorce, a no-fault divorce should be taken into consideration.[22]"

-KaJunl (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grounds for divorce (United States). 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/20150227100415/http://www.kdlt.com/news/local-news/sd-house-votes-down-unilateral-nofault-divorce-proposal/31488202 to http://www.kdlt.com/news/local-news/sd-house-votes-down-unilateral-nofault-divorce-proposal/31488202

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Divorce in the United States
Seems that the article Grounds for divorce (United States) both contains a lot of information that is redundant to content already found in Divorce in the United States, and most of Grounds for divorce (United States) can be merged into Divorce in the United States. The fact that this seems to be the only split of a country's "divorce" versus "grounds for divorce" subjects, it may be best to combine the two articles. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is sensible to merge Grounds for divorce (United States) into Divorce in the United States. Arllaw (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the current summary/main, parent/child format (WP:SS) seem to work well; the Divorce in the United States is a neat summary and reader can go to the more specialized page for more information. Merging the two would make a rather large single page (approaching 90k) and my view is that if isn't broke', don't fix it. Klbrain (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)