Talk:Non-violent child discipline

message: Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 4 to July 12 2004, consensus was to keep.  Discussion may be found at Talk:Non-violent child discipline/Delete.
----
This was previously a subsection in the spanking article: "alternatives to spanking". I think it needs editing towards an NPOV presentation, not deletion.
_________________________________________________________________________________
When I wrote this article last night, in the spanking article, under the alternatives title, it was with the hope that it would be seen as a practicable alternative to spanking, as the subtitle has suggested.  I am glad to see it moved here, but it needs to stay, whether or not it receives extensive rewrites.
User:Raina
This article is great. if anything it is written with excessive care to not present a POV. The vast majority is uncontentious and should be stated as fact. Rather than 'they believe' Erich 06:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

message: Just look at the title. "Non-violent", hmmm? This suggests that spanking is about doing violence to children, rather than the loving correction that it is. A normal spanking is not fun for either party, and it doesn't cause injury.
Violent dicipline would be... well, there's that lady who used her gas range (cooktop, burner, etc.) to punish her kids.
All throughout the page, it is suggested that parents who spank (well, anyone not a "non-violent parenting advocate", and we all know what that refers to) are a number of bad things: inconsistent, lazy, nagging, shaming, unwilling to admit mistakes, and so on.
:Maybe the article has changed some since you wrote this, because I just read it all right now and though it sounded pretty NPOV. However, I do agree that non-violent may not be the best word. Maybe "non-corporal" or something along those lines would be better. Jamesters 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Violence is violence.  Look up the definition.  If you want advocate that some violence in the form of spankingis acceptable, that is your choice, but stop trying to control language to fit you personal views.  --207.215.78.126 (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  not even close to NPOV 

message: For the record: Personally, I've never seen any of the kids I used to know who were physically discipline turn out to be anything other than overly aggressive and more willing to use violence than those who weren't.  I wouldn't use physical force against my children.
Now then.  This article is not NPOV, because it presents only one opinion throughout: that 'non-violent' discipline is always better than physical discipline.  It also includes outright advice where the article talks to the reader: "Praise and rewards (hugs, time with the child, etc.) for good behavior similarly goes much further as discipline than does punishment, while nagging and shaming tear down both trust and respect for the parent. Giving the child your time is a discipline tool that will also keep her on track, as will consistent family time, laughter, listening, and genuine respect for her, her person, her ideas, and her talents."  Now, this might be appropriate for the section of smoking pipe that provides instruction on the best method of filling and lighting a pipe.  However, I'm not so sure that Wikipedia should be editorialising on subjects like parenting, where there is no defined 'best way' to produce a well-adjusted child, unlike pipe smoking, where there is a definite and easily-provable best method of packing and lighting the pipe.
At the very least, the article requires opposing arguments, perhaps in the manner of capital punishment, and a modification of the editorialising tone.  It manages to explain both sides of a debate adequately without resorting to editorialising.  Or perhaps the arguments for and against physical discipline could be presented on child discipline, which is currently a stub, with this page retained as a more in-depth exploration of what 'non-violent child discipline' means, but without the editorialising?  Hig Hertenfleurst 09:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this isn't NPOV

message: Would be good to add some sources for some of the claims in the article.  I'm sure that they are plenty, but I am unsure which are most applicable.
Roodog2k 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unreferenced 

message: I am an opponent of spanking but this article has got to move. What about "alternatives to spanking" or something like that? mirageinred 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the article. 

message: When do children come to an age where they are able to understand reasoning? Thrane 14:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When 

message: Can someone find some references or even just guidelines as to the age at which each method is appropriate? Obviously, all children are different, and develop at their own pace, but first-time parents (me) cannot tell when to expect their child to start responding to or even understanding a certain method, and a rule of thumb is helpful. --128.135.131.100 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate ages?