Talk:Divorce in the United States

Questionable placement of quote from 2005

The article contains a quote attributed to "Brian K. Williams, Stacy C. Sawyer, Carl M. Wahlstrom, Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, 2005" that is sitting a completely awkward place. Further, 2005 is a full 7 years ago, and rates have been falling, so this quote should either be removed or placed into a historical context circa 2005. 108.46.184.22 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it, as it said "Married adults now divorce two-and-a-half times as often as adults did 20 years ago" and http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/11statab/vitstat.pdf says 1985 had 5 divorces per 1,000 people and 2005 had 3.6.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

South Dakota or NY?

This article seems to contradict itself. It states that South Dakota was the last state to legislate no-fault divorce, but then it says that New York State does not have no-fault divorce. What's going on here? 72.25.7.18 (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

Maybe this means that South Dakota has most recently recognized no-fault divorce, but there are other states that haven't yet.Factsofphotos (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Divorce in the United States ?

Is there figures available ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.233.23 (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This article appears to suborn perjury as shown in this quote about getting around residency laws in Nevada by obtaining false testimony and submitting it. The article needs cleaning up. Jerry Jerryocrow (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Factors, negative and positive

An editor mentions "Other variables that either negatively or positively affect rates of divorce include..." but which way they affect divorce (or continued marriage) are not given. One can guess at some of them, but not all. Can these be grouped either negative or positive? Student7 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree!! That section is so frustrating! I'm half tempted to search for the book that section is based on, just so it can be re-worked.Threepenpals (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mergefrom Divorce (United States)

Divorce (United States) appears to be some sort of a split from Divorce. It covers a lot of the same information and I hypothesise the reason it was done was because it was US-biased, without intending to step on the toes of this article. Most of the info (which is the same as on Divorce) can probably be lost without a problem and I was tempted to mark it for deletion, but there's a little bit of stuff there that should probably be here. Basically the stats section. —Felix the Cassowary 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be the "high level" article, calling the legal article, "Divorce (United States)." But the latter needs renaming to distinguish it as a separate legalistic article. Right now there is definitely a confusion.

Merging them would only result in legal issues being too mixed in the combined article here rather than a summary someplace before linking to the legal article. It would really mess up the legal article which, to date, only addresses legal issues. Having a wall of separation is nice. And important. Student7 (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2009

(UTC)

Read it too quickly. Both seem to only address legal issues. I think one needs to specialize in legal, the other, the higher level article should address personal issues that might contain statistics on divorce, and unique touchy-feely stuff (sorry, can't think of the right word!  :) that is outside the legal sphere, but is unique to the US, or on which the US has statistics and other countries do not (which would be typical). Student7 (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The current names are unsuitable for a specifically legal article. Divorce (United States) means exactly the same thing as Divorce in the United States. A new name like Divorce Law in the United States or Divorce Law (United States) would be more appropriate for an article concentrating on the legal aspects of divorce.Factsofphotos (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the law name only, would rather see something generic that would apply to other facets of law as well as to other countries. Such as "Law on Divorce in the United States" I realize that this violates style guides, but it is very objective. I think objectively outweighs style here. Or "Law in the United States on Divorce." Something stressing law or legal issues first then the category and or nation second or third. These become "classic" names thereby. Student7 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting 232

I took a look at ..232 edits and assumed they were all vandalism as before. But turned out I erased three references instead. Not sure if they should be there, but that wasn't my intent. Student7 (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevada improbability

I think there's a serious problem with the stats regarding Nevada's marriage rates. Having marriage rates in the 80s and 90s (99%) percent per 1000 population would be, to say the least, not quite probable, the demography couldn't cope with it, it would have to include even minors et there would need to have one massive propulation growth for that. I think there was a problem with the dot and the decimals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.254 (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, they have 3 million people and 30 million tourists each year. Nearly 10% of the tourists would have to get married, which seems a bit high, but higher rates than other states could be expected. Maybe we'd best tag it. Student7 (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)