Talk:Corporal punishment/Archive 1

message: I can see no current discussion on this page about the neutrality of the article. Therefore I propose to remove the NPOV tag unless there are objections. Also, it would help if users on this page signed their contributions using four squiggles like this ~~~~ so we could judge whether the debates are current or not. The Land 13:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done for the reasons stated above. If you wish to dispute the neutrality of the article, you are free to restore the NPOV dispute template. However if you do, please give your reasons here with a signed comment. The Land 09:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV tag has been restored because of recent importation of questionable pro-corporal punishment material, such as the statistics and "pro and con" section (which is really a barely disguised "pro" section). 195.92.40.49 12:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Article requires more sources for pro and con section, and more arguments against capital punishment. Section should also be cleaned up- either individual pros and cons separated, or the argument separated into points of contention. 202.156.6.54 09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: :I've removed the sentence "This has, unfortunately, been seen in police reports coming out of Sweden (first to ban corporal punishment) revealing increased cruelty by both adults and children." as I have not heard of any such reports; please provide cites if you want to restore it -- note that more than anecdotal evidence would be needed for this. -- The Anome 15:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
:I've also removed this entire paragraph:
::Some social science research shows that moderate corporal punishment is quick, safe and effective (and literally superficial), but some argue that it may be difficult for parents (especially substance-abusers or those under extreme financial stress) and other authorities to find appropriate limits. Other research shows exactly the opposite, that even mild corporal punishment can cause "anti-social behavior".
:OK, there's one lot of research pro-corporal punishment, and another lot anti-corporal punishment -- but they're both unsourced! Sources, please, before anyone restores this paragraph. -- The Anome 15:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Have cut these two articles out because in their current form they do not add to the article. If someone wanted to analyse them, great; however we should not be reproducing possibly copyrighted media material. 10:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced text removed from the article 

message: There's been a considerable amount of linkspamming recently on corporal punishment (and associated subjects, birching, caning etc) to the corpun website, which is a none too accurate and not entirely neutral source. Please be vigilant!
* If the numerous links to CorPun (or rather documents on that site) seem like linkspam, that is largely the unintended consequence of 1° the negligence of most contributors to provide any (other) sources and references, 2° the prozaic fact that I, for my part, concentrating on the description, not the controversy, found this site an unequaled treasure trove of documentation from very many and diverse sources, all to be approached with a critical eye- it clearly states itself that this is just providing documentation, not a point of view, while admitting the contra-side is knowingly somewhat under-represented but that is not a major problem insofar as it seems less prone to provide detailed facts, rather hammers on its well-known convictions; fortunately most documents such as legislation, testimonies and press cuttings report rather then to advocate, or at least a bit of both). If anyone can provide other, even better repositories of factual material (especially pre-1800, relatively thin on CorPun to) I'ld be happy to make good use of it, but if nobody does, don't bitch (pardon my language) if contributors use what they can use
P.S. As for the controversy part, it is by definition to polemic to be objective, but the debate is so prominent that it is noteworthy in itself, as long as it remains clear most of the arguments are just positions, not facts leading to an inevitable conclusion. Fastifex 11:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspamming 

message: A user(s) has been adding a lot of information in the 'types and means' section. It's all interesting stuff: however, it is now taking up most of the article and is mainly analysis rather than fact. Does it warrant its own page? And does it constitute (non-encyclopedic) original research? The Land 14:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types and Means: New article? Original Research? 

message: This article is in a very poor state at present and requires work. Specific points that need to be tackled are:
* Poorly structure: there are far too many minor subdivisions and the sections seem to be placed in no logical order. There is also too much use of bullet points, where such usage is not always warranted.
* POV: there is a lot of POV material in this article and, as it has developed, more has been added. For instance, the section on arguments for and against corporal punishment is clearly written by someone in favour of the practice.
* Discussion in article: this is what the talk page is for.
* Poor use of statistics: all statistics must be adaquately sourced so that they can be analysed and, if necessary challenged by other wikipedians.
* Pedantry: do we really need to know that punishment can be with strap, whip, riding crop, spoon, axe (axe?!?) and so forth? Much of this becomes unnecessary verbiage that tells the reader little.
* Poor writing. This needs no explanation.
* Questionable use of sources. Much of the material is sourced from the questionable pro-corporal punishment Corpun website. Selective research is no excuse for bias.
195.92.40.49 13:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing required 

message: The alternative to corporal punishment are not exactly well proven to make better children and more function adults. The 2 kids behind the Columbine massacre were never spanked and there is believe among pro-spanking advocates (both with and without psychological training) that more lenient punishing techniques accompanying with the modern usage of massive self-esteem uplifting, increase the like hood of making children into narcissists and sociopath. I have seen plenty of antidotal and personal evidence for this though I have not seen a statically studies, and that in its self is the problem here. 
Without statically evidence specific to a claim, that claim is nothing more then speculation, be it from a laymen or train psychologist! This works both ways in not being able to invalid other child punishment techniques while also making any claims against corporal punishment not back by such evidence purely speculation: so claims the corporal punishment teaches violence, is just that claim of speculation, unless a study can be shown that children punished under corporal punishment are more violent then children punished in a non-corporal manner, when all other variables are accounted for. Claims corporal punishment is the same as child abuse, speculation unless studies can show psychological traumas cause by child abuse is present in children that were spanked! Claims corporal punishment is counter productive and not as effective as other punishment techniques, you guessed it, without studies comparing and statically validating these claims, they are just claims!
Claims do not make a neutral article that states known fact, it makes a bias articles and purports a view with none proof of validity. 
So get with the citations and references!
* After stating I advanced none of the un-supported claims, I can see you have a point at least in so far that (especially partial) contributors should try to substantiate their claims; however that is not the whole story, both for methodological reasons and because the very debate in itself it to some point sociologically interesting, provided claims aren't presented as proven facts with impunity. I therefore create an additional subsection for statistical questions within Controversy; hopefully you and as many serious debaters as possible will contribute to it, I will only on occasion do so as my approach is essentially descriptive, not judgmental, as I prefer the reader to make up his own mind after the facts have been (but not mis-re-)presented by us contributors Fastifex 08:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't really get this, do you? The point is that statistical evidence is important if one wants to make definitive claims on the effects of corporal punishment. However, unsupported, unsourced statistics are utterly useless and shouldn't appear on the page, as they could be simply made up. And the ones that have appeared on the page in the past do look like they were the invention of some journalist or other, rather than being the results of proper scientific study. 62.25.106.209 10:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Opinion should not appear in an encyclopedia at all. The NPOV tag is not a warning to readers, but a suggestion to editors that material needs to be cleaned up. 62.25.106.209 14:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: not _just_ a warning to readers. We should aim to provide factual information to readers, including the fact that it may not be as neutral as it should be, where necessary. 202.156.6.54 09:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are the statistical studies???

message: Have removed the untidy statistic section to here so people can work on it wihtout it eating up the Wikipedia. Note I did not make the constribution directly above this Talk section. The Land 12:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics section

message: Well, we can't have our cake and eat it: either we accomodate for the (in may view legitimate, but possibly unrealisticaly ambitious) drive for statistical evidence, OR we deny this to the ordinary reader as Talk is little more then a medium for editorial conflict (or coordinaton) among Contributors. IF it goes that 'esoterical' way, let's at least provide a clear referral in the Article Fastifex 12:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't really get this, do you? The point is that statistical evidence is important if one wants to make definitive claims on the effects of corporal punishment. However, unsupported, unsourced statistics are utterly useless and shouldn't appear on the page, as they could be simply made up. And the ones that have appeared on the page in the past do look like they were the invention of some journalist or other, rather than being the results of proper scientific study. 62.25.106.209 10:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Opinion should not appear in an encyclopedia at all. The NPOV tag is not a warning to readers, but a suggestion to editors that material needs to be cleaned up. 62.25.106.209 14:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: not _just_ a warning to readers. We should aim to provide factual information to readers, including the fact that it may not be as neutral as it should be, where necessary. 202.156.6.54 09:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Which way?

message: I removed the following section from the article:
"===Controversy==="
"There is a strikingly greater input of contributions pro or contra under the equivalent heading in the article on Spanking - apparently most are more concerned with the generally temporary reddening of juvenile buns in schools and at home then with the often graver wounds inflicted on young and old(er) in the very name of justice."
I think that this belongs on the talk page and not in the middle of the article.  Especially since it self-references Wikipedia controversy  and talks about "temporary reddening of juvenile buns." not to mention that it doesn't make any sense.--Kewp (t) 08:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section

message: I cleaned up a few passages that were almost impossible to understand.  This article is very difficult to read, especially in the "Types and Means" section.  This section is filled with tortuous prose and I'm not sure that the Theater analogy is entirely appropriate for a section of this length.  A comparison with theater could make a interesting (short)sub-section, but it shouldn't be dragged out for half the article, with "Sets and Props" and "Dramatis personae."  It's verging on the ridiculous. Plus the information in the latter half of the article should be in paragraphs not in lists, which makes the article very hard to follow.--Kewp (t) 11:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some very good work here. I think some of the material in the "Types and Means" section should be retained, in particular the sections on implements used in punishment and the anatomical targets of punishment. As a whole, however, this part of the article needs some serious work and some major cuts. 62.25.106.209 11:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Danbeck 03:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you look at the article's history, since earlier comments, most of the useful information in "Types and Means" has been pulled out and dumped in other sections. I agree that 90%+ could be deleted without damaging the article. 62.25.106.209 08:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heavily trimmed "Types and Means" now to a few short paragraphs. The article needs a bit of restructing and these could probably be moved elsewhere, if they are to be kept. 195.92.40.49 09:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Types and Means - Remove, Rework?

message: It is a shame that people such as the commentator below can mutilate an article in the name of improving it. Obviously, there is a direct correlation between violent crime and the punishment received as a child. 
:-Is there? Quote studies. 202.156.6.54 09:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: -Again, quote studies or figures. Possible post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. 202.156.6.54 09:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Snipped from top of article

message: I'm confused by this article. The article school corporal punishment and this source say punishment in schools is against the law in Czech Republic. If this source is reliable can someone who knows how to please update that map? - filelakeshoe 07:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the law was changed quite recently and the map does now need updating. -- Alarics (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated this file per this table. Gabbe (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech Republic 

message: The map on the article is outdated and failed to include every country that outlawed Corporal punishment. Japan explicitly outlawed it in 1947. Especially school based Corporal punishment. --Akemi Mokoto (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1947 ban was only for schools as far as we know, and this is already stated in School corporal punishment. If it has now been banned in the home as well, that needs to be stated with a reliable source at Corporal punishment in the home. But according to Giteacpoc that is not the case. http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/japan.html  -- Alarics (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporal punishment in Japan - ILLEGAL 

message: The paragraph on the philosopher's view just expands on the common sense obviety that the acts of punishment aren't "ok" in themselves, but only depending on the context of punishment, "therefore" children wouldn't "learn" that using such methods of control outside this context. But that's not quite in tune with the actual research. "A study published last year in Child Abuse and Neglect revealed an intergenerational cycle of violence in homes where physical punishment was used. Researchers interviewed parents and children age 3 to 7 from more than 100 families. Children who were physically punished were more likely to endorse hitting as a means of resolving their conflicts with peers and siblings", and more. It's perhaps just as problematic that the other views in favor of corporal punishment are dealing specifically with the punishment of prisoners, not about punishment of children by their parents or school workers, and no clear distinction is drawn. --Extremophile (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I propose deleting that paragraph altogether and just leaving the links to the individual articles about different kinds of corporal punishment (parental, judicial, school) because, as you imply, the arguments in each case are of quite different kinds. -- Alarics (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  -- Alarics (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Differing views" conflates punishment of prisoners and children, and gives more space to philosophical embelishment of common-sense than to empirical research  

message: The map  must be updated to show Macedonia, Malta, Honduras.. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:855C (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update map 

message: This article states that, in all U.S. states, parental corporal punishment is legal. In 2012, the state of Delaware passed a law that bans infliction of physical pain on children, so this would make corporal punishment illegal there. Here is an article about the law: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/delaware-1st-state-to-jail-for-parents-who-use-spanking-to-discipline  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yfgy3 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That press article is misleading. Corporal punishment itself was not banned by the new legislative changes. The law only deals with specific forms of violence against children. See discussion here: Talk:Corporal_punishment_in_the_home#Delaware. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DCFC (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delaware 

message: Who created the front map? It could easily be the most outdated map of all time! Should defiantly be removed. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually the map is more or less up to date, and I have restored it. I think you must have misunderstood it. Basically the situation is that all countries in Europe have banned corporal punishment in schools, but only some European countries have also banned it in the home. -- Alarics (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you that that in Scandinavia (clearly shown on map) it's madly illegal, Alarics. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, Alarics, the countries marked in green are supposed to show countries in which it's legal in both home and school. All members of the European Union is not allowed to use corporal punishment! Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is precisely what the map is saying! Look at the caption to the map again. "Prohibited" means "illegal" and "not allowed". The map says the opposite of what you seem to think it means, because you have evidently misunderstood the word "prohibited". -- Alarics (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my God! I have made many stupid Wikipedia-mistakes in my life, but this might be the stupidest mistake I have ever made. Sorry, Alarics. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the fuck? 

message: I think it should be mentioned that more than once corporal punishment is highly recommended in the Bible, e. g.
Sprueche 3,12; 19,18; 23,13; 29,17
The prohibition of corporal punishment in a series of states therefore is conflicting with the bible what troubles traditional/fundamental parents with the question which laws have in this case the higher priority. --Gkln (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The "History" section of the article already mentions that corporal punishment is endorsed in Proverbs 13:24 and Proverbs 23:13-14. Is that not sufficient? The wider question you raise, whether religious people should obey modern laws that they perceive to be in conflict with their beliefs, is a long way outside the terms of reference of this article. -- Alarics (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible missing 

message: For a Psychology writing course, a classmate and I wrote an addition to this page on the topic of corporal punishment and its effects on child psychology. Specifically, we want to add information on psychological research regarding the emotional and cognitive implications of corporal punishment as well as how these effects translate into adulthood.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwestend (talk • contribs) 21:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That kind of research applies only to domestic CP and is already covered in Corporal punishment in the home#Research. This article is for facts about corporal punishment in general. -- Alarics (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporal Punishment and Child Psychology 

message: The distinction made here between "corporal" and "physical" punishment is not very accurate.  As far as "causing injury" is concerned, this article notes that Roman "lashes" could draw blood, and the injuries to slaves in the 19th-century American South from whipping are notorious.  I doubt that anyone would argue that such injuries were purely accidental.  Britannica lists mutilation, such as branding and blinding, as a form of corporal punishment, and amputation is covered in the same article.
In fact, injury to the body is part and parcel of all forms of corporal punishment.  Absent neurological dysfunction, pain is a direct result of either inflammation or injury to biological tissue (nociceptive pain).Taylor, Donald. "Improving Acute Pain Mgmt: Optimizing Patient Selection: Neuropathic and Nociceptive Pain". Medscape.  Corporal punishment designed to inflict pain does so by causing injury, however "light" or temporary.  For instance, the red marks on a child's buttocks from spanking are the result of burst capillaries under the skin's surface. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We went into all this at great length before. See further up this page. I do not think we should entertain these revisionist notions about what constitutes "injury". Transient red marks are not "injury" under any ordinary usage of the term. Such things as amputation and branding are physical punishments but they are not what is normally meant by "corporal punishment". -- Alarics (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so; nevertheless, I am not proposing a new definition of "injury", but a change to this page to reflect published sources.  There is no logical reason to exclude the harsh punishments mentioned from the definition of "corporal punishment".  Meanwhile, Cambridge and Oxford Dictionaries define corporal punishment simply as "physical punishment".  The two terms are interchangeable. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

text: The International Association for the Study of Pain describes nociceptive (as opposed to neuropathic) pain as "pain that arises from actual or threatened damage to non-neural tissue".International Association for the Study of Pain, "IASP Taxonomy"  It would seem that tissue injury is central to the phenomenon of pain, and by extension, any form of corporal punishment designed to inflict pain.  But that is only incidental to the fact that published definitions (and descriptions) of CP are not limited with reference to injury; doing so only complicates what should be a simple subject.  Corporal punishments are aimed at the body; some clearly produce injury while others may not. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote: "corporal" vs. "physical" punishment & injury

message: The terminology "prohibited" and "not prohibited" in the map legend seem likely to lead to some confusion (see "What the fuck?", above).  Perhaps less educated readers or those whose first language is not English might confuse prohibited with permitted.  Banned might be a better choice for prohibited. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For people whose English is not good, there is a whole separate "Simple English" version of Wikipedia. "Prohibited" is not an obscure or difficult word. -- Alarics (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to say that the above exchange is evidence to the contrary.  Who knows how many other readers may have made a similar mistake?  WP:STYLE states that "Plain English works best", meaning the avoidance of Latin-derived (really Norman-French-derived) words where possible, e.g. "prohibit", from prohibere.  I see no disadvantage to using a simpler word here. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree with the use of plain English vs. unnecessarily complicated English. That doesn't have to mean avoiding Latin-derived words, of which day-to-day English contains many. "Prohibited" seems pretty plain to me. One Wikipedia user got into a momentary confusion, for which he or she quickly apologised. That can happen to any of us on an off day, but is not evidence of a lack of clarity. We need to avoid dumbing down. Are you sure "banned" means exactly the same thing? -- Alarics (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, if you really insist on changing this, why not turn it round and use "permitted", so that green on the map becomes "not permitted in schools or in the home", blue becomes "permitted only in the home", and red becomes "permitted both in schools and in the home"? -- Alarics (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "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 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, fears of "dumbing down" are misplaced, and in any event WP:STYLE emphasizes making Wikipedia "easier and more intuitive".  I am not proposing to change the wording of the entire article, but simply to make the graphic easier to understand at a glance. Ban is used to mean "to forbid (=refuse to allow) something, especially officially",Cambridge Dictionaries "officially or legally prohibit...officially exclude (someone) from a place".Oxford Dictionaries  I don't see anything dumb about this word. The sense of "forbid" versus "physically exclude" should be apparent in context.  And banned is more logical than permitted; among the countries which do not ban CP, not all have laws expressly permitting it. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

text: A preference for words of Germanic origin versus Latin wouldn't be sensible at every opportunity, but it is indicated as "often" being a feature of WP:STYLE's preferred Plain English. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology: map legend 

message: I moved the definition of CP issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child to the article on campaigns against corporal punishment, since it seemed more pertinent there. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: UN Committee definition