Talk:New York divorce coercion gang

Article name change is not a minor edit
I have opened a discussion here because you did a controversial page move and marked it as minor. This sort of thing needs to be discussed on the talk page. Originally it was at 2013 New York divorce torture plot, but I later moved it to Edison divorce torture plot because the year is surely not needed for a singular event such as this; and while many of the previous events and planning emanated from New York, the plot itself was centered around New Jersey in general and Edison in particular. By changing it from plot to ring, you are implying that what is most notable here is not the plot but the ring. The problem with this is only a tiny portion of the ring's activities centered around Edison, so that cannot be an accurate title for this article. New York divorce coercion ring might be a better fit. Also, is it a ring, or is it a gang, as reliable sources call it? This one uses both terms in its headline. StonyBrook (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, apologies, I certainly didn't mean to tag the name change as minor. I don't recall checking the box, and, assuming I did (and it wasn't a glitch of some sort), it was an accident.  You're absolutely right that the name change isn't a minor edit.  Regarding the name itself, point well taken on the Edison vs. New York issue.  As for gang vs. ring, ring seemed a bit more NPOV to me, but there are certainly RS for gang, so I'm certainly not wedded to ring.  If you think "New York divorce coercion gang" is a better title, then, I'm happy to implement it.  BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * these are the only RS I am finding that call it a ring, (#9 also calls it a hit squad), so if anything, for due weight it should be changed to New York divorce coercion gang. Another point to consider is the potential confusion the readers will have due to the words 'divorce' and 'ring' (as in wedding ring) being in the same title. But we aren't finished yet. There is an inherent problem with naming the article after the gang because the gang has not been named in RS. There exists Epstein-Wolmark gang, which is not an official name and doesn't appear anywhere as such, since it is only a characterization based upon the purported ringleaders, a fact which has been reported; but this would be controversial, since Wikipedia doesn't create new identities, and even though Epstein-Wolmark gang is itself not an official name but a mere descriptor. So what about moving it to Mendel Epstein, whom the references say most of the story is about? All it lacks now is early bio info. StonyBrook (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

June 2020
The Judge found no evidence of a ring or gang just an old Rabbi who read too much Lee Childs. So this page shouldn’t exists. If it does it should write about the women who spend years along with hundred of thousands of dollars on legal fees trying to receive a Jewish divorce from their Husbands and the US law doesn’t recognize value to a religious document so the “husbands” continue extortion to religious women and the women not only get vilified by their spouses but also the media and Justices for the religious beliefs. Esthere600 (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * from your edits it seems that you may have some difficulty editing this article from a neutral point of view, in which case it is recommended for you to take a step back and reassess if you can edit this topic objectively. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core policies before you continue, such as no original research, and remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Also be sure you have not come here to right great wrongs. Best, StonyBrook (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)