Talk:Corporal punishment/Archive 2

message: *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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  linkspamming to corpun.com 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  template "abuse" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Restoration of "Abuse" template

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Endcorporalpunishment.org concerns

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Training

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Physical Punishment redirect 

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

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Corporal punishment is abuse

message: 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)
replies: text: Remove it? How ridiculous. Skinnyweed 23:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Only Solution..... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Header paragraph and biased/disputed statements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poor article 

message: 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  MojoTas 00:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law Reform Report - Parents using physical punishment on children 

message: 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)
thread_title:  unsupported claims in introduction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merging/Deleting other CP pages