Talk:Corporal punishment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

• When making changes to this Talk page please sign your edits with 4 tildes ~~~~. This means that other people can make sense of the conversation.
• Please contribute new discussions at the bottom of the page.
• This article is not a place to try and push particular points of view about corporal punishment. It is also not about the sexual aspects of the subject, which are at Erotic spanking. If your interest is more sexual than historical then go there.
• In any case, please provide references to factual material. There is no purpose to using this page, or any Wikipedia page, to try to put forward your personal views on corporal punishment or any other subject.

With regards, The Land 15:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

linkspamming to corpun.com

I have only just discovered that my website www.corpun.com has been discussed on here. I take great exception to its being described as "a none too accurate and not entirely neutral source". In what way is my site not accurate? It is mainly a repository of documents of various sorts, and I take great care with the accuracy of their reproduction and am very diligent (to the point of pedantry, in some people's view) about citing sources and dates. For instance, I possess material which looks quite plausible but which I haven't put on my website because I haven't yet managed to discover where it came from or when it was published.

As for "not entirely neutral", I don't really see how it would be possible to produce something entirely neutral on such a vast subject. I prefer the term "balanced". I think my site is one of only three CP sites of any significance that make some attempt at balance (the other two are http://www.archivist.f2s.com/cpa/mainpage.htm and http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm and I'm a little surprised that at present you don't mention either of these).

Someone has also written of "the questionable pro-corporal punishment Corpun website". I would like to know what is meant by "questionable" here. It is misleading to describe it as a pro-corporal punishment website. It's not the purpose of the site to be a campaign for or against anything. I'm not interested in that and it doesn't claim to be that. I have tried to explain what it does claim to be on my "about this website" page at http://www.corpun.com/expl.htm.

I think my selection of material is relatively unbiased -- most of it is not opinion but factual reportage, but when opinions come up I have included plenty of stuff on all sides of the argument -- but the very act of selection inevitably involves making judgements. Occasionally I come across something which I think is preposterous, and its very preposterousness makes it worthy of inclusion, because the site is among other things a record of what different people have written at different times. Just because I reproduce someting on my site doesn't mean that I agree with it myself. Don't shoot the messenger!

Where my own views appear (a very small proportion of the total website) they are clearly labelled as such. I do have my own view about whether CP is a good thing or a bad thing, and it is a rather distinctive one: basically I think both "sides of the argument" are wrong! Most of the people who agitate for or against CP are extremists who have persuaded themselves that the subject is of great importance. The majority view in the middle -- that it is a minor issue in the wider scheme of things, whose presence or absence probably doesn't make much difference to anything -- goes largely unrepresented. It probably follows that the fanatics at either end of the spectrum, who make so much noise, don't much care for my website because the great mass of coverage over time, taken in the round, doesn't bear out their case. Some of these people expect my site to take the same sort of extreme stance that they themselves take; they somehow can't cope with the idea of a mere repository of balanced factual coverage.

So I urge anyone writing on this topic to guard against the idea that the subject can usefully be reduced to two opposing positions with the implication that one of them must be right and the other wrong, and that everybody can or should identify with one or the other.

In so far as I am campaigning for or against anything, it is against the rewriting of history. I think when you look at material published in a different era on this subject you quickly see that changes of attitudes from one generation to the next are really just a matter of fashion. Broadly, the received wisdom at present in the western world is that CP is beyond the pale; by reproducing a range of stuff covering a longer timescale I am showing, among other things, that this is essentially an arbitrary "fashion choice" of extremely recent date in the context of history.

On the Wikipedia article itself, I see that its neutrality has been disputed. I slightly doubt myself whether neutrality is ever going to be achieved on such a multifaceted and complex issue, but I certainly think neutrality is not best served when there is a huge sidebar at the top of the page which seems to take it as read that CP is a subcategory of "abuse".

At the moment of writing this, the page doesn't appear to have any links to my site. Indeed, as far as I can see it has only one external link at all, and that is to a very narrow and specific aspect of the thing. It's up to you, but I think a reasonable outside observer might think it rather odd for such an article to make no reference at all to what Google certainly seems to regard as the English-speaking world's major factual website on the subject. -- Colin Farrell, 6 December 2005

THE Colin Farrell??!?!?66.97.203.123 12:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

template "abuse"

I've removed the sidebar about "abuse" from the page on corporal punishment. It seems to me absolutely unacceptable to put such a box on that page, as though it were somehow unanimously agreed that corporal punishment of any kind in all circumstances constitutes "abuse" (a grossly overused word and now more or less meaningless by the way). Many people feel that proper corporal punishment has nothing whatever to do with "abuse". -- Colin Farrell, 6 December 2005

Somebody apparently on a UK government server (who seems to have a great deal to say on a remarkably wide range of issues) has put the "abuse" sidebar back without any explanation. I've removed it again. As I said above, it is COMPLETELY unacceptable to equate corporal punishment with so-called "abuse" in this way. To imply that all corporal punishment, in any circumstances, automatically constitutes "abuse" is about as non-neutral a point of view as you could get.

Restoration of "Abuse" template

This message is addressed both to Mr. Farrell and to the other anonymous editor who most recently removed the "abuse" template, who appears to be a different person. I appreciate and share your desires for this article to conform to the NPOV policy; however, I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of the template in question. The title of the template is "Topics relating to Abuse", not "kinds of abuse" or something similar. The template should not and does not equate corporal punishment with abuse; its only implication is that the topic of corporal punishment is related to the topic of abuse, which is objectively true if for no other reason than that a noteworthy number of people in the world do equate them. Moreover, the template is really only a kind of table of contents linking related topics; it is up to the text of the article to neutrally describe and characterize the debate about corporal punishment and abuse, not the presence or absence of a navigational tool.

For these reasons, and because a substantial number of users besides me seem to think the template should be there (judging from the amount of time it had already been there, and the number of people who have replaced it), I have replaced the template. I advise leaving it where it is for the time being, at least until further discussion and consensus can take place. If you do feel that the template is sending a POV message, please suggest and/or make changes to the template itself to make it more neutral, rather than removing it from the corporal punishment page entirely. In the interest of NPOV, I would certainly support a rewording of the template to indicate more clearly that corporal punishment is merely a related topic, or a potential or alleged subcategory of abuse. (Finally, if you would like to continue participating in talk pages, you should create an account and sign your posts so we know who you are.) Thanks for your attention to this matter and for your input.

–Sommers ^(Talk) 03:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: corporal punishment vs. abuse: I think the idea Mr. Farrell might have been trying to get at is that some might regard corporal punishment and abuse as definitionally non-overlapping. I, for one, have always considered corporal punishment something with was required to be deserved, as opposed to abuse, which was required to be undeserved. By including CP in the template and the template at the top of CP you are effectively identifying it, at least by implication as a form of abuse. I will attempt to resolve, please feel free to revert my changes. --Acq3 06:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note: When I said (above) "feel free to revert my changes" I was implying comment and justification be included here. Evidently I needed to be explict. Please discuss and justify the revert. Without explaining, I can't agree with you. : ) --Acq3 08:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates should be at the top of the page; it's a navigational tool, not a statement of whether corporal punishment is abuse or not. Evidently some people believe that corporal punishment is abusive and template helps them to find the page, or users on this page to find other pages relating to abuse. 62.25.106.209 12:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

While I would agree that Templates are generally a navigational tool, I think your arguement works more effectively in the reverse. That is to say if you in fact are asserting that the purpose of the template is solely navigational then it should go at the bottom of the page (like navigational templates on most pages generally are...) If you were to argue that the inclusion of the template is meant to convey some meaning then at the top would be more appropriate. Given we already have objections to the inclusion of the template AT ALL, I feel that putting it close the the section of the article that actually deals with the opinions that corporal punishment is abuse satisfies your concerns re: navigation while addressing those who are concerned with its inclusion at all. While I generally agree that templates are not intended to imply statements, we have multiple people who are concerned with the potential inference, and frankly I agree with them. This template is not merely a boring list of all highways in the U.S. Interstate Highway System, but ripe for potential misinterpretation. My Porcelain God could be considered an example of a page with two templates, one informational and on the top, one navigational and on the bottom. All in all, I think that my previous placement runs a reasonable middle ground between the two opposing viewpoints. I will revert again as I seem to have some support for this middle ground from registered users (see history). I look forward to further viewpoints. --Acq3 04:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Endcorporalpunishment.org concerns

"www.endcorporalpunishment.org is FAKE WEBSITE"

www.endcorporalpunishment.org is NOT a fake website, but a resource for parents, and others, looking for information on corporal punishment. Lying and or obfuscation does not help the pro-punishment argument.

"www.endcorporalpunishment.org is JUST A CHEAP, Men-Cursing & BIASED WEBSITE!"

Likewise, www.endcorporalpunishment.com is also NOT "just a cheap, Men-Cursing & biased website" but a resource for parents, and others, looking for information on corporal punishment. Lying and or obfuscation does not help the pro-punishment argument. Bartonhall 17:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)bartonhall

"I NEVER BELIEVE ANY CONTENT FROM THAT SITE FROM VERY BEGINING AS ANYBODY IS  !!!"

Powerful nonsensical opinion. Bartonhall 17:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)bartonhall

Reference : 1. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/ "US OFFICAL WEBSITE" 2. ://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo981214/text/81214w04.htm#81214w04_wqn10 "UK OFFICIAL WEBSITE" 3. groups.yahoo.com/group/jcp-female "GROUP-BASED FACTUAL WEBSITE" 4. www.humanrights.org.fj/pdf/Naushad_Ali_Judgment.pdf "CONSTITUTION THE HIGHEST POWER" 5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1470230.stm + www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/ "US OFFICAL WEBSITE" 6. encarta.msn.com - Corporal punishment - section "MOST POPULAR ENCYCLOPEDIA"

http://www.communitylawcentre.org.za/children/2005art19/vol1_no1_status.php DEFINITION OF a "cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment"

the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1995, committed itself to fulfilling all the obligations under the Convention. One such obligation is to protect children from all forms of physical and mental violence as outlined in Article 19. It should be noted that this protection extends to all forms of corporal punishment and especially that which happens in the family. Similarly, there are relevant provisions in the South African Constitution (Act 108 of 1996), such as section 28(1)(d), which aims to protect children from neglect, maltreatment, abuse and degradation; section 12(1)(e), which provides for the right not to be treated or punished in "a cruel, inhuman or degrading way" , and section 10, which provides that everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.

In South Africa, the "use of corporal punishment has been abolished in all aspects of public life". However, the use thereof is still allowed within the home as parents are allowed to physically chastise their children, provided that such punishment is reasonable.

THIS EMAIL HAS BEEN POSTED IN MESSAGE BOARD ! ALSO SUBMITED TO RELEVANT AUTHORITIES LIKE UN & "OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE"

This section indeed needs complete overhaul. I don't think endcorporalpunishment.org is A fake site. There are some good references about the corporal punishment.

Just to be clear, the suggestion that endcorporalpunishment.org "is a fake site" does not come from me.

On the question whether "corporal punishment" and "physical punishment" should be merged into one page, I would vote no. While on a strict definition these two phrases may theoretically mean the same thing, in practice I think the phrase "corporal punishment" has traditionally had a much narrower meaning than "physical punishment", and the distinction is worth preserving.

For instance, making school students do push-ups or run laps as a consequence for misbehaviour is clearly a physical punishment but it's not what is generally meant by the phrase "corporal punishment", which I think should be kept for spanking/paddling. Likewise in the judicial sphere, the death penalty and imprisonment are clearly physical punishments, but the phrase "corporal punishment" in this context is usually understood to mean only whipping or caning.

Colin Farrell 62.205.117.22 12:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

the problem of definition is indeed a tricky one due to the inconsistency globally on what is defined in different societies as ok to inflict upon children. As everyone is culturally influenced, including Mr Farrell and everyone who has ever been involved in publishing a dictionary, and things are always changing regarding the protection of children from what is, but was not previously regarded as abuse. However, as it is generally accepted that an assault on another person is indeed abuse, then striking a child as an adult with or without a weapon, must surely have to be proven not to be at the very least equal abuse, in order to establish a reason to avoid this conclusion. If i were to hit Mr Farrel, i would find it hard to see this as being more abusive than were i ever to use any legal permission to assault a child (which bearing in mind the authority i would have over them and the difference in size/ body mass etc logically must be a more serious abuse). The fact that certain other abuses such as mental abuse are still perhaps not covered by legislation, doesnt mean we can ignore the clear close relationship between abuse and the assumed right of violence over people smaller than those of us who are adults.80.192.59.196 16:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it does not require two articles for the distinction to be made: a seciton on one page or the other would do. Wikipedia has a clear policy against 'POV forks' which carry substantially the same content with a different spin, and the material currently in Physical punishment is mainly stuff previously added and then removed from Corporal punishment. The Land 12:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really don't care what you do with it. Both articles are wildly unsatisfactory anyway, and in my view require a good deal more than mere "cleaning up". I was just trying to be helpful by pointing out that the terms "corporal punishment" and "physical punishment" do not at all mean the same thing in ordinary English discourse, although the former is a subset of the latter.

Meanwhile, as yet another idiot accuses me (privately this time) of linkspamming just because I mentioned the existence of my website, I should still like to have the answers to my questions near the top of this page, viz.: to the person who described my site as "none too accurate", in what way is is not accurate? And to the person who described it as "questionable", what do you mean?

Finally, I see that both articles do now have the redeeming feature of a link to my site. In view of earlier discussions on here, I would just like to make it clear that these links were not put there by me.

Colin Farrell 62.205.117.22 15:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If Colin Farrell has no leanings for or against corporal punishment, what the hell has he got a website dedicated to corporal punishment for???? He protesteth too much methinks!!

Simon Martin (intrigued)

Training

"This is done calmly and lovingly, right at the site of the disobedience." I find this not NPOV. I would rewrite it myself if I knew the subject. --OGoncho 06:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed that section - can't find any immediate evidence that this practice is actually engaged in. The Land 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Physical Punishment redirect

Wikiepdia has a fairly clear policy that there should not be more than one article about the same subject. A while back Physical punishment was created, and then made a redirect to this article, and then recreated. I've now made it a redirect again. If you feel that this was the wrong thing to do, please say so here, and give reasons why 'Physical punishment' is different from 'Corporal punishment'. The Land 21:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I had to dig a bit into the archives here to see the last time I had a discussion over this (November). I see that I then converted the PP article to a redirect because the Pp article looked like just another version of the Cp article. The redirect was reverted, and since I was in no mood to edit war over it, I decided to let it stay like that and let someone else make a redirect if needed. There is supposedly a subtle difference between the two terms, physical punishement being a slightly more general term, but I think that they are still so similar that we don't need articles in both places. Moreover, looking at the articles, I still definitely think a redirect is the appropriate thing to do because the two articles are just versions of one another, and it looks to me like a textbook example of content forking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Corporal punishment is abuse

I can't believe that some of you are too stupid to not know that corporal punishment is abuse. You've shown your stupidity above. Corporal punishment is certainly abuse. 152.163.100.5 00:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If the statement above purports to be a legal statement, it is demonstrably false. If it is a moral statement, it is POV. Either way, it is meaningless. St. Jimmy 18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends which country youre speaking about. Try Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. They all categorise assaulting children as abuse and have lower juvenile crime rates than the paddle friendly United States:}82.41.4.66 00:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're one of those stupid people then. Corporal punishment is certainly abuse. 205.188.117.5 03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your wit and superior intellect simply underwhelms me. St. Jimmy 04:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever says that corporal punishment is abuse is a complete, utter, and absolute moron. From ancient times to very recently (the last twenty-five years or so) corporal punishment was used by parents, teachers, and other adults in order to teach children to become functioning members of society. Are you saying that ALMOST EVERY PARENT IN HISTORY was abusive? Are you saying that ALMOST EVERY CHILD EVER BORN should have been removed from their biological parents? Do you really think that your argument has ANY basis? At all? Also, calling others stupid is, in the liberal-fundamentalist view that you evidently share, a form of mental abuse. Please practice what you preach, even if your theories are incorrect. (annon. person)

Corporal punishment is no less abuse than wife beating, family abuse and domestic violence. 64.12.116.5 18:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I just asked a bunch of people at my workplace if corporal punishment was abuse and

they all said "yes". 152.163.100.5 18:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, Wikipedia is not the Gallup poll. Then again, neither is your workplace. St. Jimmy 20:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, once again, Corporal punishment is no less abuse than wife beating, family abuse and domestic violence. 152.163.100.5 22:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you actually think that repetition of an arbitrary proposition turns it into a fact? Go back to school, lad. St. Jimmy 01:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between corporal punishment and child abuse. When someone abuses a child, it means that they GET PLEASURE OUT OF HITTING THE CHILD and DO IT WHETHER OR NOT THE CHILD DID A BAD DEED! When someone uses corporal punishment, they are trying to TEACH THE CHILD A LESSON so that they LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG! Now everyone just SHUT UP ABOUT IT! The talk page is NOT the battlefield of an e-war. You people are acting immature, and it needs to stop NOW. (annon. person)

Is Abuse or physical punishment the only way to teach children the difference between right and wrong? Abuse is wrong. What lesson was my dad trying to teach me when he beat me with a plastic baseball bat when he was drunk and I was annoying my younger brother? He didn't enjoy it, because he appologized to me when he was sober. Was it punishment? Yes. Was this abuse? Yes! If you are using a history of parental abuse to justify abuse by saying "ALMOST EVERY PARENT IN HISTORY was abusive". The same historical agrument can be made in favor of slavery, "MY PARENTS PRACTICED SLAVERY, SO IT'S NOT BAD BECAUSE EVERYONE DOES IT". At what point do you admit it the practice is wrong? Just my two cents -Ryan the new guy (5/22/06)

I'm sorry about your experiences, but to point out that they are POV and have no relation to the article (which should be summarizing the key aspects of corporal punishment as it applies to society in general), is too obvious to require elaboration.St. Jimmy 04:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be little factual reference here, so let's clarify a few things: 1. In any situation I think we would all agree that positive reinforcement is preferable to any form of punishment. Here are several papers which support the fact that corporal punishment has very serious negative effects. 2. Abuse is directly interpreted as improper use. Clearly corporal punishment is not improper use of the implement. Clearly it is improper use of the body part affected, though. 3. Abuse is commonly defined as cruelty. There is no doubt that any sort of unnecessary pain is cruelty - unless it is consensual, in which case it could even be considered self-abuse. The very fact that you're "sorry" about Ryan's experiences indicates to me that logic aside, you all know that this is abuse. Were it not for religious writings condoning corporal punishment would you still feel the same way? Remember: there was a time when even apartheid was considered normal.

1. I don't agree that positive reinforcement is always preferable to any form of punishment. 2. Despite repeated use of the term "clearly" you are offering a POV. The standard of "improper use" begs the question, what is the proper use or uses of the body part affected? I doubt we would agree on that if we haven't agreed on the topic thus far. 3. I disagree than any unnecessary pain is the same thing as cruelty. What pain is "necessary" begs the question, "necessary for what?" A whole lot of things that might be unnecessary if your standards are low enough may become necessary if your desired result changes. 4. I am not religious. I am "sorry" that Ryan's parents were imperfect, but I don't know if they were abusive and, at most, I would regret how they administered corporal punishment, not that they administered it. 5. An encyclopedia would not be an appropriate place for a POV on apartheid either. 6. Sign your edits. St. Jimmy 03:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I just had to add that children are human beings. You are not allowed to hit an unknown bypasser at the street, so why you should be allowed to hit your own children? Human rights belong to the children too.

209.90.128.35 23:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC) I think children should grow up with respect of their parents not in fear as they would if their parents were to use coporal punishment. I know this as a fact for i am a child

This comparison is silly. Did the passerby disobey you? And if he is giving you lip, and the ideal solution is to find help as i assume you're suggesting, is that what to do with a child?66.97.203.123 13:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with a strictly positive conditioning system is that the subject only learns when he has done something right. This applies to children, students, military, even my dog. Though I agree that there is a line to be crossed where "corporal punishment" becomes abusive, I have been in too many arguments with too many people who think that the entire practice is downright evil. There MUST be some negative re-enforcement of negative behavior, as well as the positive re-enforcement for positive behavior. I also know that timeouts only do so much... I was spanked by my parents, and I remember those a whole lot more than I do the endless hours of boredom in a corner. In my experience (which, admitadly is somewhat narrow in focus), I have met quite alot of parents who could not bring themselves to use corporal punishment... eventually, the kid figures out that the worst that will happen is a grounding or a time-out. 150.252.72.6 19:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Would everyone please refrain from using this page as a forum for discussing the merits of corporal punishment? That is not what this page is for. You waste other peoples' time when you misuse it like that. This page is for discussing the writing and editing of the associated article -- not for expressing individual opinions about corporal punishment, nor for collecting anecdotal evidence about corporal punishment. May I suggest you use the Usenet newsgroup alt.parenting.spanking if you wish to debate about corporal punishment? And there may be other appropriate fora, but not here. Thanks. --Coppertwig 02:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The abuse sidebar consists of things that are unquestionably abuse, i.e. torture.

I believe the fellow with the capital lettered statements defined the difference well, but if someone could further clarify, it would resolve this petty issue.66.97.203.123 13:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Only Solution.....

This article should probably be removed from Wikipedia altogether, because nothing will please the little babies arguing semantics.

By the way, do you people realize that corporal punishment is protected under the Constitution? Also, do you realize that, under the guidelines of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and subsequent legislation, a parent will get life in prison for killing a child, but a child under sixteen can kill his or her parents with (comparatively) little jail time? How can we trust the CRC to be right about anything if it thinks children don't know what death and killing are?

Also, juvenile delinquency (underage drinking, vandalism, petty theft, etc.)has increased since corporal punishment was refuted by certain deluded members of our society. Also, suicide and dropout rates among teenagers have increased. (

Citations please...other than from Fox news:} ie from an independant academic source thanks)82.41.4.66 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And as for you, "Ryan,"didn't you learn not to bother your brother the first time the bat made contact with your undoubtedly thick skull? And, no, you haven't convinced me; I still believe this was corporal punishment and not abuse. And, yes, I did say it before (though some liberal deleted the comment): at least it wasn't a metal bat. And weren't we talking about editing the article? ~J.T.

Are you seriously suggesting that this person deserved to be assaulted by an adult?!? crime rates against children could be argued to have dropped if you count such abuse as the crime you would have to if you remained objective on the defining such abuse by the nature of what is inflicted by the person with power over their more vuinerable victim. Crime rates such as racial lynchings have dropped in recent decades but like delinquency, there is no direct correlation (unless anyone can proviode any objective study findings?) that I am presently aware of. Also please lets not refer to others as morons as it shows a lack of discipline in how one has been brought up to reacte. Luckily I wasnt abused by adults and dont feel any necessity to call those who disagree with me morons. thanx80.192.16.174 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How dare you suggest that someone you've never even met has been a victim of child abuse?! Excuse me, "Objective Study Findings," but how do you get off making an assumption like that? How can you accuse this person's parents, who you don't know anything about, of such a crime? I can't believe you don't even realize that's just as bad as calling someone a moron. Apparently you DO feel a need to resort to petty insults in the face of confrontation. So what does that say about you? --Ellie

Hi Ellie, Im presuming you are referring to what i wrote above as you seem to have quoted me. I cant see quite what the bee in your bonnet is though. I dont think ive suggested anyone was abused, rather Ive failed to find evidence that abuse wasnt inflicted on the victim of serious assault (someone named Ryan,his "thick skull" to quote J.T. who seems to favour both verbal and physical abuse from what he wrote above :}and a probably thicker bat apparently, its been so long since i was last here :}!) If you can show me evidence that being hit on the body with any kind of bat (including the nocturnal variety found in caves and batmobiles), particularly when still a child and by an adult (im presuming Ryan was a child from the context though ill scroll up when im done and recheck that one) is not abuse, then i will retract my stated assumption of there having had been a victim of it. Otherwise, im afraid i cant think of any more apt description. :]80.192.59.202 13:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

hi again Ellie:} on rereading your objection, id just like to add that im basing my original posting on the presumption that the unnamed parents of the said Ryan (his father it seems) was in fact guilty of the abuse as his son seems to have stated. Are you accusing Ryan (whom i also assume YOU have never met either) of deliberate fabrication? IE the same assumption of guilt in the other direction is implicit in your response to what i wrote im afraid!:} cheers80.192.59.202 13:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's been forever and you're probably not going to read this, but I thought you were implying that J.T.'s parents abused him/her with the statement: "Luckily I wasn't abused by adults and don't feel a necessity to call others who disagree with me morons." If that wasn't what you meant, then my apologies. Eilicea 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC) (changed my username)

Hi Eilecea, yes its been a while but luckily ive checked back:} You are in a sense correct on my presumption. If for instance you had written a similair example as Ryan did (from memory, ill have to scroll up again but i recall something about being hit with a weapon, which all the research I have studied would categorise as abusive and highly dangerous to the development of the child towards socialisation into adult society), I would also be unable to verify the truth as to that statement...IE it is perfectly possible that Ryan, you, myself and everyone else here could be making up stories about parents and other adults so nothing should be believed in a legal sense as having occurred based on the evidence of this talk page:}. However, I would tend to imply that it was abuse as that is (were it true) what i would interpret such treatment of children to fall under. I guess I see it as abusive due to the trust that the child has for the authority of the responsible adult, and the work of Professor Strauss emphasises the effects of this abuse by the adult of the trust of the child in the findings of (for instance) young adult males and the correlation between date rape and experiences of such abuse in their formative years. Please google the name Murray Strauss and take a look at the research for yourself.82.41.4.66 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again again :} Elicea. Well now Ive remembered that J.T, was not Ryan, (i pop back here every few months and your names all keep changing so I sometimes forget who was saying what from the previous visit!)I can see why you may have read more into my off the cuff remark, however the promotion of physical child abuse (which evidence suggests should be equated with sexual abuse in the effects upon child development) is surely more worthy of criticism than your personal interpretation of what I had appeared to have suggested(although clearly i was referring to myself in the negative rather than him/her in the positive:}}. I mean whether it was or wasnt the case that any adult here who promotes the hitting of children was hit as a child is less iminent as a threat to children than the idea they are putting forward, which im afraid evidence leads me to define as child abuse. If J.T. doesnt see hitting children (even with weapons other than a fist, leg or hand it seems!) as abusive, then doubtless he couldnt take offence at my defining of something (s)he would support as an adult as abusive due to our different definitions of assaulting children and its rights and wrongs. IE if you or he object to that being the case with your own families, please apply the same moral standards to all human beings. Just something to think about. Cheers again:}82.41.4.66 16:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ive just rescrolled back to follow the converation and remembered that I in fact never suggested that he used the word "moron" (he in fact misread me, I had merely made a general statement that such language be avoided by everyone:}82.41.4.66 16:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Deal with it. Also, not once did I use the word "moron," though, with your atrocious grammar, you could justifiably be classified in this category. This is one of your sentences: "crime rates against children could be argued to have dropped if you count such abuse as the crime you would have to if you remained objective on the defining such abuse by the nature of what is inflicted by the person with power over their more vuinerable victim." I don't even know what point you're trying to expound here. ~J.T.

well I would feel more guilty in assaulting a child than an adult, so yes I would count that as a crime, seeing as the force of an adult upon them carries a greater risk than it would upon yourself (I assume youre an adult, as Im in a generous mood. How an earth can you hide behind the right not to be the victim of an assault, and not see the same assault on a smaller person as of equal weight? Rather selfish of you to grab all the rights for yourself is it not? . As for the name calling, (and in response to your enquiery, where did I say that you were the culprit? I merely suggested, seeing as that term has been used on this page, that it and other such facile terms be exchanged for more sensible adjectives, however you've used it now I see!)I'll leave that to the children here (self discipline has taught me to respect the rights of the immature lol)82.41.7.233 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What if it's a fifteen-year-old boy who happens to be extremely violent? This person is stronger than his parents, and can certainly kill one or both of them if he feels like it, with little consequence. Are you saying that the parents don't have the right to fight back, and they should allow him to continue beating them up? The government says so. Sure, there are "programs," but many of these are either extremely expensive or only open to people over eighteen, which kind of defeats their purpose. And, anyway, those won't be of any use to the parents, in the moment, while they're being hit. I'm not talking about little five-year-olds here; I'm talking about people like that. And yes, they do exist! I have an acquaintance who is a social worker, and she recounted many cases exactly like that one. Anyway, how do you think people get that way in the first place? If they aren't disciplined harshly enough -- and, no, not all children respond to verbal commands, some of them don't bother listening -- that will be a major contributing factor in what these children become, or don't become, later in life. Research your facts. Then come back and tell me that corporal punishment is abuse. ~J.T.

Interesting assumption you make that a "command", verbal or otherwise is the appropriate form of communication between parents and children or adolescents. If you are strong enough to beat me up that still doesnt justify violence on my part, even were you a six foot fifteen year old, and evidence suggests that physical punishments, even in their mildest forms, can damage the intellectual and behavioural development of the child, effecting everyone in the long run. Maybe the violent teenagers out there are the result of the physical abuse they were victims of at the age of five or six by parents accustomed to presuming that a "smack" was the answer to the difficult task of parenting. If you look up the name (Professor) Murray A. Straus and go to his home page, you will find some fascinating evidence for why its not a good idea to use violence on children. Maybe America wouldnt be as violent a society if more American parents sat down and studied his findings.80.192.4.221 09:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe in all that "emotional trauma" stuff. It's just another term for "wallowing in one's own self-pity,"and if one becomes violent as a result of it, it's their own fault. Maybe if your child was one of these abusive teenagers, you'd have a different perspective. Do you really believe for a moment that you would allow yourself to get beaten up by someone so that you don't "damage their intellectual and behavioral development"? ~J.T.

What evidence can you offer for your beliefs? You requested that I offer you evidence for the damage done by assaults on children and I suggested you check out the results of extensive research carried out by Professor Murray A. Straus (his homepage is quite easy for you to find with google, and its empirical evidence rather than merely a "belief" about "wallowing". Why is it your own fault if you have a predictable reaction to such trauma at an early age years later by becoming a violent and/or angry adult or adolescent(check out his findings on date rape corollations with spanking in childhood!)? Research by trained experts in the field of child development points more and more towards damage being done by parents that hit, even without much force behind the assault, and to the result being (for instance) a potentially aggressive six foot teenager with a gun (easily obtainable in many states!) years later. So that ironically, your proposed solution to the danger you may have found yourself in, might in fact have been the original cause, or leading contributory factor in the creation of such behavioural developmental damage in the first place! Please don't tell me what you believe and not why you believe it. If you can convince me with empirical study findings from a reliable academic, I will be able to treat your opinions more seriously, otherwise, it just sounds like Im trapped in discourse with a stroppy teenager throwing a tantrum. cheers.[[User:80.192.4.221 |80.192.4.221]] 21:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. Then you can use that stuff as a reference in the article, which needs citations, in the section "For and Against Corporal Punishment." And cheers to you too. ~J.T.

Thanks for the advice but im still awaiting your reply to my above-stated query. Why do you disbelieve the empirical findings of a child development expert (or have you not read any of his findings yet?) cheers again.82.41.7.177 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

(:Sign your edits. Skinnyweed 22:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove it? How ridiculous. Skinnyweed 23:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone really wants the arcticle removed, but I can foresee the emergence of a view that deleting it would be preferable to the continuation of a thinly veiled attack on CP in the guise of an article. I am not saying that is quite the point we are at, but if certain folks here had there way, it might end up as such. We all need to work hard to achieve neutrality and consensus so we don't end up at that point. St. Jimmy 03:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Restoration

Sorry, it had to be done. We're back now at the last decent version of the article. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for personal grievances. 62.25.106.209 12:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not been following the article closely but the restored version does look better!

What if we keep the article as it is now but add a section about the corporal punishment/child abuse dispute? We should let the public know what we've had to do to make this article NPOV.

At present I think the section on modern usage needs serious review and the history section could be improved by extending it throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. There is a large amount of modern academic research on the subject but it needs to be referenced.

Additionally, people need to stop trying to foist their own personal viewpoints on the subject. There is, to be honest, no corporal punishment/child abuse dispute, except in the minds of some rather strident editors.

On the plus side, the sections on "Ritual and punishment" and "Administration of punishment" are at present very good, comprehensive and comprehensible. 195.92.40.49 12:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course there's a corporal punishment/child abuse dispute. Where have YOU been?

Also, why does everyone argue about the article and not actually attempt to solve the problem? I haven't seen any new edits (except for my own edits) since I first read the article.

There is absolutely a major debate over corporal punishment, here and elsewhere, and it shows little sign of abating. This article is not going to be turned into a blatant anti-CP piece as long as I'm an editor. St. Jimmy 23:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've Been Reading The Talk Page, And This Is Why Nothing Ever Gets Done

Aside from the "Restoration" comments, nobody seems to be actually talking about the article. Instead, everyone is debating about the nature of corporal punishment. Basically, this is what we need to do to the article:

• We can leave the introductory paragraph as it is, because I think everyone agrees that corporal punishment is pain intended as punishment, even if some people think it's abuse.
• There needs to be an expanded section on the corporal punishment/child abuse dispute. This is a MAJOR issue both here and in the real world.
• The erotic spanking references need to be taken out, because they are not relevant to the article. In addition, someone can put in a note at the top redirecting those perverts to another page.
• The modern usage section should be comprised of two sections: corporal punishment in judicial and administrative settings, and corporal punishment in the home.

I really don't see what all the argument is about. Even if some people think corporal punishment is abuse and some people don't, corporal punishment is what it is. It's pain intended as punishment. Its physical/emotional/moral effects can be discussed elsewhere, not at Wikipedia. -- Ellie (6/23/06)

Do not call people 'perverts'. I think the effects of corporal punishment is a major issue, hence should be included. — Skinnyweed 20:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Corporal punishment has been adapted for sexual purposes; this is not an important part of the subject, but it does need to be mentioned in the body of the article, if the article is to be encyclopedic. 62.25.106.209 09:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by the effects of corporal punishment? Do you mean that corporal punishment is an effective and beneficial method of discipline? Do you mean that corporal punishment is damaging to the child? Or are you talking about its effects on society (ex. the corporal punishment/child abuse debate)? If it is one of the first two, this will instigate even more debate, which is something we want to avoid at this point.

Also, I included the "perverts" reference on purpose, just to see if someone would say something about it. I like how you complained about that before you made a suggestion for the article. -- Ellie (6/23/06)

If it's not important, then why bother including it? It even says at the top of the talk page that this article is not about the sexual aspects of corporal punishment. -- Ellie (6/28/06)

Encyclopedia. Encylopedia. This is not "The website of those things that interest me in a given subject. The use of corporal punishment for sexual purposes exists, is in its appropriate context on this page and occupies no more than a single paragraph. If you can't understand that, you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. 195.92.40.49 08:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

From the top: "This article is.....not about the sexual aspects of the subject, which are at Erotic spanking. If your interest is more sexual than historical then go there."Are you arguing with me because you think a paragraph should be included on erotic spanking instead of just a reference, or because I referred to people who read that article as perverts? Anyway, you missed my entire point, which was to detail what tasks need to be completed in order to bring the article up to standard. Please go back to the top of this section and read again. -- Ellie

See? I didn't take it out entirely. I just said "Corporal punishment has been adapted for sexual purposes. See 'erotic spanking.'" I'm assuming all that stuff is in that article; I don't know because I've never read it. --Ellie

Header paragraph and biased/disputed statements

The edit made to the header paragraph was done by myself, please excuse my horrendous spelling and use of words in the comment. ("Propogate" was misspelled, and should have been "propagandize" at any rate.)

I found the nature of the last two statements in the header paragraph to have an air of bias to them. In the case of the first of the last two sentences, "the practice" is not generally held by all to differ from torture, as many opponents of the practice consider it to not be different whatsoever. Whether either view is valid or not, this is a gross misrepresentation, and needed to be clarified.

The last sentence seemed more like propaganda than anything.

The physical and psychological effects of certain severe or prolonged forms of corporal punishment are more or less indistinguishable from those of torture.

This statement needs to be removed for more than one reason, not the least of which is the fact that the concept of severity is entirely dependent on an observer's point of view, and as such is hardly an objective statement. More than that, it just seems out of place in a encyclopedia, which is supposed to contain factual as well as relevant statements. You can't apply fact to something indeterminable, and moreover, this statement's relevance is questionable. Who, pray tell, decided where and when any type of "punishment" becomes severe? I've seen no definitive authority lay out in stone, for all the world to see, what is or isn't "severe." --Rockmanxv3 23:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are legal definitions of severity. For instance, in the United Kingdom corporal punishment must be, in legal jargon, 'moderate and reasonable'. What constitutes moderate and reasonable punishment is determined by legal precedent and expert opinion. Whilst the concept of severity isn't objective, it's not completely arbitrary either. 62.25.106.209 13:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the same "Ellie" who made the other comments, only I have an account now. (Yay!) The definition of severity is not definitive even within a country (excuse my redundancy.) For example, in the United States, "constitutionally" corporal punishment of children is allowed as long as it does not leave permanent damage, but in "reality" a parent will be arrested for assault if they leave any sort of mark, permanent or not, on the child in the course of corporal punishment. I really hope you're not planning on writing out the legal definitions of severity for every country in the world. Anyway, we're talking about in a personal context as well as a legal one. Some people will reach the legal limit of severity, while some will not use corporal punishment at all. --Ellie041505 14:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If a U.S. parent leaves "any sort of mark" in the course of corporal punishment and it is detected, there is a disturbing possibility that they will be arrested; but there is not a certainty, particularly in states which have moved to restrict their definitions of criminal cp: Nevada, Oklahoma and Wyoming have all done so since 1999.St. Jimmy 15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. If you read the rest of the talk page, you'll see that almost all of it is about where the line should be drawn, and not about improving the article itself. I'm happy that someone besides me is taking some initiative around here for once.

I'm thinking that we should put that into the article: "There has been much dispute in recent years over where the line between corporal punishment and torture should be drawn, or whether there is a line at all."Do you agree? --Ellie

Sounds like a plan, and appears that you decided to go ahead and do it anyway. *Chuckle* Good job. Objectively presented. --Rockmanxv3 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing. The sections in this article seem to have been assembled in a completely random order. First there's the introductory paragraph, then History, then Modern Usage, then Corporal Punishment of Children, then Arguments For and Against, then Erotic Spanking, then Ritualized Corporal Punishment, and then Administration of Corporal Punishment. It's like each section is not connected to the other sections, and it doesn't make sense when you look at it as a whole.

Some of these sections need to be split apart or joined as well. The Corporal Punishment of Children section can be combined into the History and Modern Usage sections. The John Locke/ Jeremy Bentham/ everyone else arguments against corporal punishment can be combined into Arguments For and Against. The Administration of Corporal Punishment section could possibly be combined into the Ritualized Corporal Punishment section. The Erotic Spanking section should be placed at the very end, as it's only two sentences long and isn't that important compared with the other sections of the article.

And we NEED SOURCES!!!!! If anyone has sources that can be used in this article, or added a source but didn't cite the parts of the article it influenced, please help us! --Ellie

Really, leave well alone if you don't know what you're doing. The structure of the article is fine except for the huge mess in the middle that is "Modern Usage". I'm sure most of the templates from the top of the page could be moved to that section, as that's what they really are referring to. 62.25.106.209 13:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you can be more articulate about expressing your disagreement? I was merely giving out suggestions, which people can add or subtract from as they like. If you actually read the article, then you would realize that I haven't done anything yet. --Ellie041505 14:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

- - - I think that what this well-written article really lacks is a "negative air" towards corporal punishment.

Also, the perverts "sexual punishment" section should be taken out since, as it has already been said, it's irrelevant to the subject and belongs in its own "sub-culture" article about sexual perversions etc.

Um, the article isn't supposed to have any sort of air. See Wikipedia:NPOV for details. It's supposed to provide an impartial analysis of the topic being discussed, stating facts, not opinions. We can certainly include a section on "Arguments For and Against Corporal Punishment" -- in fact, we already have one -- but the overall tone of the article must not have any particular bias.

However, I do agree with your opinion that the article is well-written already. I think that it is a Class B or even a Class A at the moment (I'm not sure if it will ever be a Featured Article, however, since this topic seems to be so prone to debate.) Anyway, we might be able to remove some of those tags. I really don't think that the article is NPOV or needing cleanup. I'm going to go review the article right now and tell you what I think needs to be fixed. Eilicea 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I just reviewed the article and made some minor edits (grammar, organization, and stuff like that), and I removed three of the tags. I removed the "cleanup" tag because this article is very well written and organized already. "Cleanup" refers to an article that has sections organized randomly, paragraphs or sentences that do not connect to one another, and is generally an article that the average person, who knows nothing about the subject, could not understand. The corporal punishment article is very easy to understand. I also removed the "POV" tag. The article is very unbiased, providing viewpoints from both sides of the corporal punishment/child abuse debate. Is it the ARTICLE people find POV, or the SUBJECT? I finally removed the "worldwide view" tag, because the article gives views on corporal punishment from many countries. These tags seem as though they were put there by someone who didn't actually read the article. If you disagree with my removing any of these tags, read the article again. If you still disagree, contact me on my talk page and tell me why. Eilicea 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

--- Concerning the "NPOV": I didn't look in the database, but there have to be informative articles about such appaling things as "child molesting", "raping", "Ku Klux Klan" or "NeoNazi Organizations" (that blather insane propaganda) etc. Would a totally Neutral POV be appropriate on such subject matter? And most importantly, in a modern context (i.e. corporal punishment today and not in the 18th century): NO. Corporal punishment, any kind of controlled violence and torture used as punishment, deterrent or interrogation, is against the very basis of human rights, and an article should have a fairly highbrow attitude (as in "the fact that it is legal in countries like Saudi Arabia doesn't make it valid"). Are the countries of the West prepared to take steps back into the hideous practices of old in modern form (e.g. Guantanamo), so the general consensus should be prepared that there are "pro" and "con" arguments for C.P. and torture?

Regards - Anton

"Would a totally Neutral POV be appropriate on such subject matter?" Um, yes. St. Jimmy 03:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Look. How about you actually read the article, and if there's any specific sentences or paragraphs you find objectionable, you state them here. (Please excuse my atrocious grammar.) Eilicea 13:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just saying, technically it's legal in Scotland (see Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003) because physical punishment is legal if it is exercised by a parent, or by anyone in charge of the child. 80.41.224.224 14:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor article

Needs to be rewritten due to lack of neutrality. Actually the comments I've seen in this article are 1 inch short of 'vandalism'. Panda

Can you be more specific? The Land 08:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Proponents of the corporal punishment of children, whilst accepting that excessive physical punishment amounts to child abuse, argue that corporal punishment, properly administered, can be the most effective form of discipline for unruly children and adolescents. Without recourse to milder forms of physical punishment, parents may use forms of emotional violence that are actually more abusive."

/\ These statements, while an attempt to state the view of the proponents, plays on the mind of the reader who, upon reading it, will ultimately see corporal punishment as 'abusive'. Panda

THE SEXUAL DANGERS OF SPANKING CHILDREN

I think this article should address the fact that many parents do experience sexual pleasure from administering corporal punishment to their children. However, the parent may strongly disagree with this. This issue is discussed in full at : http://www.nospank.net/sexdngr.htm

Law Reform Report - Parents using physical punishment on children

For anyone who is interested (it may provide some of the references you're referring to) check out the report of the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (in Australia) regarding that state's laws allowing parents to spank children. Access via [1] MojoTas 00:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, I'm back! *sniffs* I missed you guys! Anyway, if the article needs to cite its references or sources, then why are there about eleven sources at the bottom of the page in "External Links?" Do we actually need to find sources or just figure out which source goes with which part? Eilicea 00:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources are already joined to the appropriate text with superscript links. The problem is that, whilst there is a fair bit of citation in the article, it is a very contentious subject, and much of what is written is insufficiently supported. Take lines such as:

Some argue that corporal punishment is a quick and effective method 
and less cruel than long-term incarceration. 

Those are weasel words; exactly who are these people and what is the basis of their argument? I mean, I've no doubt that this is an accurate reflection of the belief of some, but, for statements like this, we really need a little more in the way of concrete evidence. 195.92.40.49 11:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also: when referencing try to be consistent with the established referencing style. I also merged references 11 and 12, as they were (slightly disingenuously) referencing the same thing. 86.143.0.68 21:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to follow the referencing style but may not have achieved perfection in this; feel free to fix any formatting errors I may have left, and I'll likely learn from that and do better the next time. Please avoid the use of words such as "disengenuously" which could be construed as describing the character or behaviour of the editor rather than some quality of the material being edited: see Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks --Coppertwig 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that the established style is to put footnotes at the ends of sentences? What about http links, e.g. to AAP -- there's one in the middle of a sentence. Are they treated differently from footnotes? Thanks in advance for clarification. --Coppertwig 22:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

unsupported claims in introduction

I just deleted this from the introduction: "Supporters of corporal punishment generally believe that it differs from torture in that it is applied for disciplinary reasons and is therefore intended to be limited, rather than intended to completely destroy the will of the subject. However, those who refute the practice generally believe that it and torture are one and the same." This claim is not supported with a footnote. It is claiming that certain people "generally believe" certain things; however, in reality people have a broad range of combinations of opinions. It is also POV, ascribing one of the more moderate pro viewpoints to most pro people and one of the more extreme anti viewpoints to most anti people. It is also somewhat redundant; it merely amplifies the previous sentence, which seems fine standing on its own. --Coppertwig 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging/Deleting other CP pages

There seems to be a proliferation of pages on this topic, some with overlapping or similar content. Examples: Child discipline, Spanking, Paddle (spanking). Perhaps these should be merged to help maintain a balance d point of view, i.e. one article with sections that can easily be kept balanced rather than different articles expressing different opinions. Also I suggest that the article "Domestic discipline (lifestyle)" simply be deleted. I have not (yet) put in formal requests for merging or deleting; I have put a comment on the talk page of the Domestic discipline (lifestyle) page suggesting deletion. What do people think of these ideas? --Coppertwig 04:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I found another one: Domestic discipline, which should probably be merged into 'Corporal punishment'. It's pretty well merely definitions. --Coppertwig 02:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone was asking where the pro/con arguments are. Note that this article has sections with arguments for and against corportal punishment. See also "Non-violent child discipline". External places to look for pro/con arguments: the alt.parenting.spanking newsgroup (see older articles via google groups); the book "Beating the Devil Out of Them" by Murray Straus (con); Scientific article by Larzelere (pro) (listed in bibliography of this article).

I think it would be better to merge most of the content from "Non-violent child discipline" into the "Parenting" page, since the methods are generally useful whether CP is also used or not, and the content which is arguments against CP to be merged into this page. --Coppertwig 14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, Coppertwig! All child-rearing discipline, including "time-outs" are supposed to cause pain: having a privilege removed is painful - or what's the point? We see a great divide in the West between the physical and the mental self, when in fact emotional scars are just harder to see. We have to socialize children or ... we get what we have today, frankly. And it is a parenting issue, not an abuse issue.

Likewise, I looked at Mr. Farrell's site, corpun.com. It's a MODEL of impartiality – the Internet at its best and most useful. You can clearly see the topic from top to bottom (sorry) and decide for yourself whether you'd prefer a public flogging over life in prison, say – or whether an out-of-control child can't be controlled physically by loving parents, rather than with all that shouting and endless litigation over which electronic toy he gets taken away now... (Okay, I admit: My cousin lives with us with his young son...) But it's all real-life, no erotic silliness, and my hat's off to Colin Farrell.

Facts

Sweden (and the nordic countries) were the [first to ban Corporal punishment]. Sweden has the world record in peace. I rest my case. 83.248.161.207 19:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC) 66.89.136.254 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC) What was not "balanced" about that article? I found it accurate and informative.

I am betting that the Religious Reich found the article unbalanced because they are huge supporters of corporal punishment and don't care if it escalates into child abuse. Obviously I think they are full of crap. Corporal punishment is a bad idea, particularly in public schools. It causes more problems than it solves.

Who Would Jesus Hit?

I think corporal punishment is great. If I had the guts to beat an adult I would be charged with assault. Being a social inadequate I beat children and call it discipline. I get a power hit and Jesus loves me all the more for it.

84.135.242.46 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Definition: lead paragraph

To say that C.P. is for the purpose of "reforming a wrongdoer" implies a judgement of wrongdoing. As I understand it, the role of Wikipedia is not to pass judgement on those so accused. And does offence here mean crime in the legal sense, or just anything that bothers somebody? Saying "punishment for a person convicted of a crime or retribution for a perceived offence" would be more accurate. Whether such punishments indeed have a reforming or disciplining effect should by no means be assumed, and in fact the evidence "shows that offenders who are punished by corporal means are actually slightly more likely to commit further crimes than are those punished by imprisonment", according to Britannica.

Neither has domestic corporal punishment by parents been shown to promote "discipline" in the long term; in a 2013 literature review, E. Gershoff noted that "In none of these longitudinal studies did spanking predict reductions in children’s aggression...Spanking consistently predicted increases in children’s aggression over time, regardless of how aggressive children were when the spanking occurred". J. Durrant and M. Straus have reached similar conclusions.

I don't see why it's necessary to invoke the intended result of such punishments at all; that deals less with facts than with uncertain, often confused, and in any case, internal to the person, human motivations. There is plenty of documentation of the claimed reasons for inflicting corporal punishment throughout history, but that's not the same thing.

"Methodically striking the offender" also seems inaccurate. Many domestic instances of C.P. involve punching, kicking, and beating. The AAP notes that, "Corporal punishment ranges from slapping the hand of a child about to touch a hot stove to identifiable child abuse, such as beatings, scaldings, and burnings." Parents who use corporal punishment often do so in anger, not just calmly and methodically. If they didn't, Baumrind et al. wouldn't need to warn parents inclined to anger not to spank (see Baumrind, Larzelere, & Cowan 2002). -Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It may suit the agenda of those campaining against c.p. to muddy the waters by trying to stretch the definition of the term. I don't think the AAP definition reflects ordinary usage. The everyday meaning of "corporal punishment" is "methodically striking the offender" in a deliberate, measured way, and does not include angry, random, casual violence of the sort you describe. If we are going to include things like punching and kicking we might as well give up altogether because the concept becomes meaningless. This article is about the more formal corporal punishment as we have defined it in the lead. There are other articles about child abuse, violence, physical punishments in general, etc. -- Alarics (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not see this as a question of promoting agendas, but of sticking to what is published in reliable sources. Britannica is one such source, and describes "corporal punishment" in terms of a continuum of varying degrees of violence, from smacking to amputation. I am not describing "angry, random, casual violence"; rather, scientists and physicians have described such violence clearly as an element of corporal punishment. If the AAP's conclusions are not mainstream enough, The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has also noted that "all paediatricians will have seen children who have been injured as a result of parental chastisement. It is not possible logically to differentiate between a smack and a physical assault since both are forms of violence". -Coconutporkpie (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Britannica source appears to date from 1911, and I wouldn't set much store by a definition that is over 100 years old. Some people like the College of Paediatrics may use a wider definition than the normal one, but what we are saying in the lead is that the term "usually refers to" the methodical striking that we have discussed. The lead goes on to quote the looser definition used by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, though this is somewhat misleading, especially since that Committee is an unelected and unaccountable collection of bureaucrats, concerned only with children, whereas c.p. is not always concerned only with children. But for better of worse, we do mention it in the third sentence of the lead, which I should have thought covers your point. -- Alarics (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge": that is Wikipedia's vision. My inspiration for editing Wikipedia is not to promote a political agenda, but to promote Freedom of thought through making factually correct information accessible to as many people as possible. I believe that the way to do this is to make Wikipedia verifiable and easy to understand. With that in mind, the problem with the definition as it stands is that it is unsourced. I do not think that it is up to Wikipedia editors to determine what is everyday use independent of published sources. The Britannica entry is clearly not anything close to 100 years old; it states, "The last floggings in the United States, for example, were carried out in the state of Delaware in 1952 (the practice was abolished there in 1972)". It also makes reference to goes on to refer to late-20th-century treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations’ “Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners", the European Social Charter, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, concluding, "By the early 21st century, more than 100 countries had also banned the corporal punishment of children in schools". -Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If the UN Committee's definition is misleading in the broader sense of CP, then it should be moved to the section or article dealing with juvenile corporal punishment in homes and schools. In any event, it makes no sense to have two contradictory definitions in the lead; the Committee's definition includes "any punishment in which physical force is used", which is consistent with Oxford Dictionaries: "Physical punishment, such as caning or flogging". In fact, it is the insistence that "everyday" CP is "methodical" and "deliberate" which really muddies the waters. Such a view is not supported by the evidence. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not share the opinion that we must despair of providing a coherent description of CP if we have to stick to the facts. The definition used by the Royal College, the AAP, and Britannica is the normal one, Since the Royal College and the AAP are made up of doctors who treat children, seeing first-hand the effects of corporal punishment, I would think that they would be the most qualified to tell us what "everyday" CP is and is not, unless other reliable sources can be shown to indicate otherwise. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary, what doctors see is by definition highly unrepresentative, since the vast majority of instances of corporal punishment clearly do not lead to injury. Doctors are the least, not the most, "qualified to tell us what everyday CP is and is not" because the everyday injury-free CP is precisely what they never have occasion to see. -- Alarics (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

References