Talk:Divorce

I highly doubt this section is to be considered scholarly. Its entire content seems to be derived from a rather trite University of New Hampshire counseling pamphlet. This section needs to be rewritten in its entirety to reflect a more scholarly treatment of the effects of divorce on children.

This section seems to leave out the root causes. One root cause behind divorce is people getting married BEFORE knowing everything about their partners, rather than after. Another is the inability to enjoy everything, and I mean everything, about their partners, regardless of how unusual or cruel they may be. A woman that marries a man, only to find out that he is a rude pig and hates that will of course look for a divorce before long. On the other hand, a woman that knows and enjoys everything about her man will marry happily regardless of whether he is a rude pig, rarely home, etc.24.118.227.213 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I added some referenced material concerning initial choice of mate. -- Beland (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article ought to make more clear the distinction between civil divorce and religious divorce. The vast majority of divorces are civil because many religions are hostile to it, when it is not simply forbidden. For instance, many Catholics erroneously believe that a civil divorce equals a religious divorce, when in fact this is not the case, since a civil divorce is merely reciprocal to a contractual civil marriage, while on the contrary Catholic religious divorces are de jure impossible and can only result in an annulment, meaning there was no religious marriage in the first place. ADM (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added a section on religion and divorce which goes into more detail on this subject. -- Beland (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would like to request the creation of a section "effects of divorce", discussing the effects of divorce, not only on children, but on the people getting divorced themselves, especially looking at different circumstances leading to divorce. This has been extensively studied--there is a wealth of easy-to-find material out there! Cazort (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is covered in Implications of divorce. That article could use a great deal of expansion, and then a better summary should be added to this article so it's not so easy to miss. -- Beland (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm adding Congress's CRS reports to their relevant talk pages, since they're so thorough and you can just copy-and-cite the content ... here's yours:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Tax_Implications_of_Divorce:_Treatment_of_Alimony%2C_Child_Support%2C_and_the_Childs_Personal_Exemption%2C_May_30%2C_2002

PS : I feel like this would warrant a small section in summary style, plus a "main article" on "Divorce (United States tax implications)" or somesuch. This page probably serves as a self-help page for many people, so this content really should be plundered. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why this turned out to be a law guide. Why doesn't the article cover all phases of divorce. Why only law? This is a deficiency and the article is structured that way right now. Student7 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Many non-law sections seem to have been lost or moved to other articles. I've done some rounding out; if you still see gaps in coverage, feel free to make a specific suggestion as to what should be added. -- Beland (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article should consider mentioning the matter of polygamous divorce, which occurs in certain countries where polygamy is allowed. With modern laws on gay marriage, further liberalization could even lead to polygamous gay divorce, if anybody can seriously imagine that. ADM (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's mentioned in the intro now. -- Beland (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are government statistics (or financed research by the NIH), that cohabitation prior to marriage is a negative factor predicting divorce. While the precise wording may be subject to alteration, the basic premise that cohabiting couples have a higher divorce rate is not really being contended by any serious researcher. It is not a popular statement here since most editors tend to be young men and is therefore subject to deletion for little or no reason. I have one good reference here. If that is contended, there are plenty of others. They tend to take up a lot of editing space and are therefore hard to read, but I can place many more if "many more" is the answer to people who basically don't care for the statement at all under any circumstances. Student7 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

In like manner, another quote on correlation with church attendance was also deleted "because it wasn't quoted 'correctly'." I have now quoted it "correctly" though it seems to be less readable. This has also been widely reported in the press and is not an obscure observation. Student7 (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I found all the comments to be insertive and generally misleading. You attempt at cleanup is far better than what was there previously, but it didn't seem supportable statistically, only referentially. I have directly quoted and linked US gov sites with real statistics. If you find the changes unsuitable feel free to undo. Nice to see another rational human trying to fix this page. Eedlee (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

In the summary of the referenced article from the surviving residue, it says (quote) "For first marriages, for example, marriages are less likely to break up, and more likely to succeed, if the wife grew up in a two-parent home, is Asian, was 20 years of age or over at marriage, did not have any children when she got married, is college-educated, has more income, or has any religious affiliation." (unquote) This is then supported in the analysis. It may be unpopular with the young, as I have mentioned, but otherwise what do you not like about this? Student7 (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see no issue with claiming religion as a contributing factor to lower divorce rate and I did leave the comment there. I had perceived that you were trying to clean up someone else's language and that perhaps you were being timid about rewriting it. It appears I incorrectly performed the undo because now I can't find the original material. I apologize for any mis-placed rewrites. If you have the material please re-insert.Eedlee (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Before misinterpreting what you have just said, resulting in a possible problem, let me place here for inspection, the original section which I am thinking about reinserting:

"Among factors that are believed to be associated with a higher divorce rate were cohabitation prior to marriage,<ref>[ http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/Family%20and%20Community%20Partnerships/Self-Sufficiency/Healthy%20Marriage/Head%20Start%20March%20Newsletter.pdf]</ref> and infrequent church attendance.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/marriage/divorce/A000000901.cfm]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=bddqnGeRGJsC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=%22church+attendance%22+divorce+rate+-.com&source=bl&ots=Eq4MGFFCz3&sig=h7YDklFrrhzcNliKSZNPAxPbtJI&hl=en&ei=WM6rSsa8Gs6RlAfBr7TlBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=%22church%20attendance%22%20divorce%20rate%20-.com&f=false]</ref>.

Sorry about the cluttering effect of the nowikis but didn't know how to present formatted refs otherwise. Student7 (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's definitely OK material, and like I stated I think maybe I was trying to cleanup someone else's info not realizing you had done your due diligence in your own efforts. I might only comment that the Google excerpt is from a 1994 book - not to discredit the author in any way as he seems credible but did he ever print a later edition? Either way no issues from me whatsoever on the re-insert. Eedlee (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I have reinserted it without the old google reference. Note that it is now refuted by the preceding paragraph which is okay IMO. It is equally cited (I suppose. I haven't checked). There is nothing wrong with contradiction here. If there were general agreement, divorce would either be forbidden or mandatory!  :) Student7 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am somewhat confused how we went from a Google book to a Barna reference? Also I am not sure the idea of "Church" which is a secular reference, is supposed to reintereate information on divorce rates, which are non-secular events. Eedlee (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure about the question.

The article is part of "WikiProject Religion." The West largely inherited its concept of divorce from its Jewish roots (bible). Not sure what this looked like historically in the rest of the world or if it was as orderly before being exposed to the Western concept.

As I recall, the original reference was challenged. The new one is submitted as reliable. Student7 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Editors and sometimes vandals, have reverted and sometimes merely not liked, the The Barna Group's report on cohabitation as a predictor of future marriage success. Please see article on Barna Group. They are respected. Saying they are Christian and therefore unreliable is clearly a WP:POV remark. I don't care for everything they say either, but they need to be considered as does any other reliable polling group. Student7 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

On their About page, the Barna Group describes how they are "working with a pool of leaders and communicators who are helping the Church to grow and become more effective in reaching people with God’s truth" and helps to "identify young people between the ages of 8 and 12 whom God has called to lead the Church in the future". That they are Christian is pretty obvious. Given that their research contradicts government data, the fact that they are actively promoting Christian values may be an indication that institutional bias has influenced their results. In the absence of third-party literature review which evaluates competing claims, readers need to be able to make up their own minds, so I have added a referenced note concerning the religious affiliation of the group. -- Beland (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes. The leaders are Christian. However, calling them "Christian" is like saying in every racial study, a white group said that..., or in a study of anything abroad, "A US group (Associated Press!) said that..." Or by The NY Times, "A left wing paper said that..." The idea of the adjective is to tarnish their results by labeling. If the results are WP:BIASed then their credentials are impugned and they shouldn't be used. But I don't think this is the case here. It was the Barna group which reported that Evangelicals were more likely to put on the mantle (I forget the exact words) of religion on Sunday, and forget about it the rest of the week, to my shock. This is hardly reflects pro-Christian bias! I believe they are reporting the facts from their polls as they have taken them. I find no evidence or comments from other sources that they are not credible on what they report. Student7 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

At this point it's everyone in the community vs just you. Any reason why you can't just remove the line? The discussion is just getting silly and has nothing to do with Divorce. 65.244.15.2 (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not sure it is possible to search divorce and cohabitation and not find research supporting (or sometimes refuting) this. Barna is just the best available for US. What is there about Barna's method of research that you don't like? Where have they demonstrated bias? I realize that people do not like this finding. But that is insufficient reason to remove it. "Everyone?" I don't think so. "Nothing to do with divorce." Huh? Student7 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to http://www.barna.org/store?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=14&category_id=1&keyword=Grow+Your+Church+from+the+Outside+In, George Barna wrote a book called "Grow Your Church from the Outside in: Understanding the Unchurched and How to Reach Them". In the product description it is declared: "In this practical and user-friendly volume, author and researcher George Barna explores the world of the unchurched. Based on research his company conducted among several thousand unchurched people, Barna describes who the unchurched are and how we might most easily and appropriately connect with them. Using additional research he conducted among churches that have had great success in attracting and retaining unchurched people, Barna also outlines perspectives and effective strategies for churches that wish to reach those who avoid churches." It also discloses that "This book was formerly titled, Re-Churching The Unchurched". The page does not cite the year of publishing, but a search in http://www.amazon.com/Grow-Your-Church-Outside-Understanding/dp/0830730753 informs us that it was published by Regal Books in December 2002. So by December 2002, George Barna already had data on who the unchurched are. Moreover, he was already engaged in a crusade to re-church the unchurched. Then, in December 2007 and January 2008, Barna Research Group, which was "founded by George and Nancy Barna in 1984", collected more data on the unchurched. Specifically in our case, they collected data about the relationship between being unchurched and being divorced. I suppose that the Barna Research Group was after a repeatability of the results. This does not mean that the results could have amounted to reproducibility, so the aforementioned results would have remained, for all practical purposes, not validated. Anyway, I presume that in this case, the independent variable was church-attendance status and the dependent variable was divorce-experience status. So for every unchurched person, the answer was either a positive correlation or a negative correlation. So if a positive correlation was found between being unchurched and being divorced, the repeatability would have been achieved and the null hypothesis would have been rejected. If a negative correlation was found, the repeatability would not have been achieved and the experimental hypothesis would have been rejected. Of course, the experimental hypothesis for George Barna and his Barna Research Group is "church is good for people", as they already took action in that direction to the point that Barna "has been hailed as 'the most quoted person in the Christian Church today' and has been named by various media as one of the nation’s most influential Christian leaders", which tells us that they had in fact moved beyond the data-analysis and hypothesis-rejection phase and have reached the conclusion phase, possibly before repeatability has been established and definitively before reproducibility has been established. So we are confronted here with the possibility of confirmation bias. How they avoided this problem is not explained in their article. Aldo L (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Too many words.

Barna is a religious fundamentalist.

The original question was "how does this affect Barna's sampling, polling and reporting the facts? How is Barna demonstrably biased in his sampling, polling and reporting? (Yes, he picks questions that are of interest to him and his subscribers, but that does not, in itself, result in a biased report).

Please be terse.

There are plenty of people who have a bias who do polling. Most pollsters have some bias. That is certainly no surprise to me. Is it to you? I know of no pollster who does not have some bias. That is the only reason they are polling. To "prove" some point to somebody. Sometimes the point fails, as happens with Barna. That just makes him honest, as most of the better-known pollsters are. Their bias is irrelevant if they use unbiased means of sampling, polling and reporting. Student7 (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am happy to have reached a consensus: "Barna is a religious fundamentalist. [...] That is the only reason they are polling. To 'prove' some point to somebody." And now that we agree, let's toast with virtual drinks, shake our virtual hands and let's all move on to another topic. Cheers... peace on Earth. Aldo L (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The fact that Barna (organization, not person) polls for religious organizations, can be revealed, but not an extended resume which someone (I didn't check) had inserted, in order to discredit the information. It's like saying, that "Gallup, founded by George Gallup, a registered Democrat, who conducts polls for the Democratic Party, found that potential voters preferred Obama over Palin 55% to 45%." Question: Did I discredit Gallup "sufficiently"? Maybe it needs yet another flourish? Student7 (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Dr. Gallup founded the American Institute of Public Opinion, the precursor of The Gallup Organization, in Princeton, New Jersey, in 1935. To ensure his independence and objectivity, Dr. Gallup resolved that he would undertake no polling that was paid for or sponsored in any way by special interest groups such as the Republican and Democratic parties. Adhering to this principle, Gallup has turned down thousands of requests for surveys from organizations representing every shade of the political spectrum and with every kind of special agenda." http://www.gallup.com/corporate/21364/George-Gallup-19011984.aspx Aldo L (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

All, or nearly all, polling organizations are available for hire. Some are known as X pollsters, whose numbers tend to favor one party over the other. One, maybe Gallup, is Democrat, another Republican. They don't fudge their numbers and are "accurate" (trustworthy) within their reporting criteria, but their (reported) methods or wording of the question(s) may favor one party or candidate over another. It is this appearance that a candidate is looking for when s/he is trying to become known as a national candidate. Or trying to convince the public that a certain position is "popular." Say increasing taxes, favoring abortion, that sort of thing.

I find Barna more credible than that. He tells it like it is. His results on religious practices of adherents demonstrates that. Student7 (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe that the reference in question is either right or wrong. What IS questionable in this case is whether the two "possible contributing factors" named in the article even belong in the first place. I, as well as a great number of others (clearly), disagree with the paragraph's relevance and place in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.103.110 (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand. Why shouldn't the causes of divorce be in an article about divorce? Student7 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

An editor has removed the article (and book), Divorce Busting, from the list of see alsos. I would like to hear the rationale for this. It is a "notable" book, substantiated by an article. If it is not, maybe the DB article s/b deleted. I agree it seems promotional, but if it is really notable, appearing here would not enhance sales. Right? Student7 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Being in Category:Divorce is probably enough; there are any number of self-help marriage books. -- Beland (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Note the new Australian divorce rates as examples. The annual rate is 2.x per thousand. This translates into 1 out of 3 marriages failing! The linkage is not clear at all, typical of these rates. We need a translation method, stated in the article someplace. All demographic data (health, for example) must have the same problem. I will try to ask elsewhere. Student7 (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean by "the linkage is not clear". Are you saying the rate seems low given the percentage of marriages that end in divorce? -- Beland (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

No. What I am saying is that if I say that 2 in a thousand marriages fail annually, I am also making a statement about how long the average marriage will last. I just don't know how to translate annual "rate" into "marriage longevity." This affects all rate stuff, not just divorces, except most of the others, total lifetime is implied. That is, knowing at what average age people marry, what their average lifespan is (Male and female), and the divorce rate, I "know" almost precisely, how long the average marriage will last until death or divorce (have to separate out. A complicating factor!).

And yes, the flip side is that I cannot "eyeball" a rate and see if it passes the "smell test" on marriage longevity.

Left message, but no one answered.

I'm not quite as certain as when I wrote that (a few seconds ago) that I can easily separate out lifespan longevity from marriage longevity. There might be a "rule of thumb" for countries with lifespans of 70-80 and a different "rule of thumb" for countries with a much lower lifespan. Student7 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see all the rates presented in a way that facilitates easier comparison. At present, some are quoted as divorces per n thousand population, whereas others are quoted as x out of y marriages. Rodparkes (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Someone just inserted a UK study on divorce. Of necessity, shouldn't these country-specific studies go under the country itself? Do social studies made in one country with different laws and mores necessarily apply to all countries? Applies to US studies as well BTW! Student7 (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have tagged India section of this article for lack of citation from any sources, the section is completely orphan. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I rm uncited material and extra words. Not much left now, so rm tag!  :) Student7 (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah thanks, section is OK now removal of tags are accepted. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have tagged this section due to lack of inline citation. Please introduce some inline citations to help improve the section. - Humaliwalay (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Driving by doing research for work. this BBC article will probably provide some decent and reliable information on the subject for the purposes of this article. Cheers, Archaeo (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

'The only Western countries where divorce is illegal are Malta[citation needed] and the British Crown Dependency of Sark.[2]'

Divorce is not illegal in Malta. Malta simply lacks a legislation for divorce, so you cannot divorce in Malta.* Also, if you manage to obtain it abroad, it is recognized.

• Of course this may change on 28 May 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.13.7 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Issue overtaken by events. Article updated.

Demdem (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The wording is that divorce is "prohibited." I suspect that there is simply no mechanism for divorce in those countries. It's like getting a license to drive on the right side of the road in a country where people normally drive on the left - there simply is no mechanism for doing so. It is not "prohibited" per se. More accurately, it is "not possible." Student7 (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Technically, there is divorce in the Philippines, but only for the Muslims. So generally saying, there is no divorce in the Philippines is not quite correctt. -- 49.145.90.111 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

was it even possible to divorce, at least in western culture, before Henry the 8th and the formation of the Anglican church?Shadowmaster13 (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Annulments were granted by the pope in the Christian world. I don't know when this started. I think Henry got one of those. It was his wanting a second one that started all the problems. "Separation" was also legal. There is no format for "divorce", per se. So it can't be done at all. Student7 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The paragraph beginning "According to Sharia law, if a man initiates the divorce," needs editing by a native speaker of English who knows the subject matter. Rammer (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article could be improved by having an addition section about the effects of having a child. One of the many fights that often turn a divorce ugly is the fight to gain custody over the children. Also for people who are married and considering a divorce it would be knowledgable to know what the effects of the divorce could have on ones child. Speaking from personal experience when your parents divorce your entire world turns upside down. If a child/teenager uninformed about Divorce came to this site to learn about it and what the effects it might have on them and ways of dealing with it they would be let down.

Also adding a section about the emotional truama for both adults and children involved would be a good addition.MonicaBB (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

A better idea would be creating a new page for divorce and children. The current article already has a section to discuss some of the general information but a complete reworking of the page is not necessary. Similar discussions about Divorce and Religion have been subtexted and moved offpage. Eedlee (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why is there a whole section for same-sex married couples in the United States? The section has roughly the same amount of material as "Effects of Divorce." Meanwhile the section on polygyny and divorce, a much broader subject, has one paragraph. I suggest some of the same-sex marriage section be farmed out to some other page because this is undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.218.96 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply