This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hey there folks, is it possible to upload an image with information about the right spots in which parents should beat their kids up, how much it hurts, etc...
I seem to recall hearing corporal punishment was a crime against the state. Maybe it was Braveheart, where the corporal states "An assault against the King's soldiers is an assualt on the King himself!". Well, now with water boarding and the closing of Guantanamo, it might be the time to reinstate an old custom of discipline. I know, it's not cool to be athletic without performance enhancing drugs, let public relations make a statement. Why placate the criminals among us, lending our empathy without cause. When the politicians have had enough it will be cool to take the righteous stand. Maybe we will stand united. -- User talk:Halenmccracken79 —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
It's Gibberish.
On a more serious note, corporal punishment is intended as "punishment" not "retribution". The latter term is far too emotive, and not a word which would normally be used of a punishment. 125.237.104.55 ( talk) 02:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Just bunch of entries into the reference section in the article which may or may not have any great bearing on what's said within the article is not particularly useful. Use the established referencing conventions of the article. If the material is relevent, footnote it. If not, leave it out. 82.31.17.65 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
under "Related topics" in this template, I have placed this template on the page. While whether corporal punishment is itself abuse is disputed, whether it is considered to be related to the topic of abuse cannot be. The existence of such a debate warrants the placement of the template. Joie de Vivre 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
(undent) As I've said, the discussion to which Acq3 is referring is comprised of a total of six comments by four people. That short discussion did not resolve the dispute, nor was a consensus reached, so, in my view, the discussion should remain open. Also, it is my understanding that templates are navigational tools for reference between related articles, not article sections. I have never seen a template placed according to an article's section. The precedent I have observed at hundreds of other Wikipedia articles is to place template as close to the top of the article as possible. As it seems to be inappropriate to bury templates in the middle of articles, I have moved it back. Comments? Joie de Vivre 17:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The "forty stripes" limitation is found in Jewish law (see Deuteronomy 25:3) not Roman law. Further, St. Paul states that he received "forty stripes save one" five times FROM THE JEWS, see 2 Cor. 11:24, which indicates that the limitation was a feature of Jewish law, not the Romans. The legal scourging that preceded crucifixion, moreover, was for the purpose of weaking the prisoner's will to resist and hastening his death, and thus probably had no particular ritual or number of lashes associated with it. John Paul Parks ( talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The abuse template is slightly ridiculous. 195.92.40.49 13:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
My grandfather often used a length of rubber hose as a disciplinary tool. Is this practice common? Albino Bebop 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Yes, quite so. СЛУЖБА ( talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Corporal punishment does not only refer to spanking. It can refer to any form of inflicting pain to punish, including flogging, caning and other forms that go far beyond the bounds of spanking. Corporal punishment is a broad term and it is related to the topic of Abuse. Joie de Vivre 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The line has to be drawn somewhere as to what will be placed under "abuse" and what won't, and wherever the line is drawn, someone is going to be unhappy about it. When the U.N. says that something is abuse, that's as good a place to draw the line as we can have. Edwardsville 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What about corporal punishment on cats and dogs? Is there any mention of that in the article? If not, I think it should be mentioned. 4.235.120.12 14:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
"Ironically, while the research shows that corporal punishment is counterproductive for all children, it is even more counterproductive for boys than girls". Although this is given a source, I don't think this is a neutral point of view. There is a HUGE range of research that has been done and is being done. I'm changing it to "...Reasearch suggests that corporal punishment is potentially counterproductive..." 144.139.143.35 13:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Sammy
---Further note------ Although the above change is a step in the right direction, this article reads in a very biased manner. If a person gets 'burned' by doing some action (especially a child) they are far less likely to do it in future. I would have thought it obvious for the article to say it was an effective means of changing someone's behaviour. There's only one side of the story being presented here - some would argue that smacking actually has a positive effect on a person's behaviour and respect for others - of course there is a wide spectrum here, I'm not arguing it would be good for everyone - but if viewpoints are being presented in this article, then both should be included.
Ultimâ 14:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If science says one thing, and tradition another, is it biased to only give weight to science? I think not. Besides, the article mentions that it does help with short-term compliance (while interfering with longterm compliance of course). /Gusten
"The problem with the use of corporal punishment is that, if punishments are to maintain their efficacy, the amount of force required may have to be increased over successive punishments."
Um, punishing by increasing the intensity of an aversive stimulus over time does not work. Experimental work has demonstrated that. If you want punishment to work, then it needs to be severe for the first offense, and needs to remain constant (or, it can be allowed to /decrease/ over time).
The six penal principles are as such. To be effective,
1. Punishment must be swift.
2. Punishment must be certain.
3. Punishment must be severe for the first offense.
4. Punishment must not increase with consecutive uses, but should remain steady or decrease.
5. Punishment will not work if the punished behavior is made less desireable.
6. Punishment will not work if the punished behavior is the only route to a subject's desires.
Let's compare two examples where punishment is effective and where it isn't. Punishment is effective for putting your finger on a hot stove. It is swift: pain rises to an intolerable level within a fraction of a second. It is sure: you cannot escape being burned if you touch a hot stove. It is severe for the first offense: burns make the /worst/ kind of pain. The punishment remains consistent: every time you touch the hot stovetop, you get burned, and the pain is no less painful. The punished behavior is not particularly desireable: there's not much you could gain from touching a hot stove. And there are alternatives to touching a hot stove: you can touch anything else in your kitchen, or rest your hand anywhere on the counter.
Punishment is not effective for knocking over convenience stores. Punishment is not swift: it takes time for the state to find the perp, arrest him, try him, sentence him, and carry out the sentence. Punishment is not sure: the perp may get away clean, leaving no useful evidence behind. Punishment is not severe for the first offense: the perp might be sentenced to a couple of months in light-security prison, or even just get a sentence of community service or something. Punishment does not remain consistent: if you hold up another store, you get a harsher sentence to which you are somewhat inured by your first sentencing. The punished behavior has a significant payoff: a thief might make off with only a hundred dollars, but he would have had a good time while doing it. And the punished behavior is the easiest route for the perp to get his cash and his thrills, because who's going to hire a robber?
-- Dreamer (rutgers.edu)
Regretfully tagged this section. I think the author has a valid insight - but references are needed to show that it isn't just a perceptive piece of Original Research. The list of weapons used in various countries needs references to show that these are more than anecdotal or individual cases. DavidCooke 07:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good discipline resource. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/27.htm
The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.
The discipline page of this site includes articles containing extensive research and worthwhile advice on various forms of child discipline within the family and the classroom. Useful articles suggest ways to discipline a child, including forms of child discipline and safe measures for parents to take to control their children. Teamme 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
In footnote 25 it says It should be noted that neither the pro-spanking or anti-spanking studies are truly scientific - they cannot be modeled or reproduced by other researchers, and the studies are often heavily biased toward producing a result that affirms the researcher's personal beliefs. This strikes me as nonsense. If a study published in a journal as important as Pediatrics isn't truly scientific then what is? It seems that whoever wrote that has an understanding of science so limited that it would rule out as non-scientific anything that didn't meet the standards of physics or chemistry. Besides, there's no evidence that the studies are biased, and very strong evidence would be needed to support that claim considering the papers were published in well respected peer-reviewed journals. 190.44.37.148 ( talk) 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Is not this "Global progress towards achieving full prohibition of all corporal punishment of children is accelerating worldwide." NPOV 70.150.94.194 ( talk) 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a PNG editor, or I would make this map; it shows US States where Corporal punishment is allowed, not allowed, and sort of allowed. -- 72.213.17.222 ( talk) 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 01:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should have the "Global Initiative To Abolish All Corporal Punishment of Children" mentioned like it is in the lead section. It seems to make the whole lead section imply that corporal punishment for children is a bad thing. Maybe it should be rewritten so it just tells about the issue; I think some people could see this as taking a political stance. Just a thought. Thanks. SunDragon34 ( talk) 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Without question, this entire article is the most biased I have ever seen. There is no mention of opposing theory, even historic. Nearly every lead sentence is presented as logical fallacy. The article should be titled "Banishment of Corporal Punishment". To state that, "147 countries do not prohibit," is just silly. The second para is "Canada:". Look at the last sentence. This isn't an encyclopedic entry, it's a second-year mid-term ChildDev paper. 166.128.134.126 ( talk) 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to challenge the claim supported by reference [23] regarding sexual discrimination being given the force of law in Queensland schools. The article claims that it has been illegal to impose physical punishment in schools on girls since 1934 but is still permissible against boys. This is not completely correct. Queensland has, over the years, implemented regulations to slowly phase out corporal punishment in schools by gradually limiting what is and is not acceptable. Initially it was banned against girls over a certain age, then against all children under a certain age. In 1992 it was banned completely (against both boys and girls) in Queensland state schools. I would point out that the website referenced at [23] reflects this contention.
However, this “ban” is not law, it is merely executive policy administered by the Queensland Department of Education. Section 280 of the Criminal Code (Qld) provides that it is a defence to assault for a teacher (and parent, and person loco parentis) if the force was reasonable under the circumstances for the purpose of correcting the child’s behaviour. Thus, corporal punishment in Queensland state schools is not “illegal”, either, as section 280 provides teachers with a defence.
So neither is there, since 1992, effective sexual discrimination when it comes to the legality of corporal punishment, and nor is the practice actually illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstantStudier ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to tell a point about the map on corporal punishment in Europe: while spanish law effectively banned it at home recently, catalan civil right, which has the preeminency according to spanish laws, indeed allows parents to punish their children. Therefore, someone should change the coloring of the map. -- 217.125.97.102 ( talk) 21:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
-- I support this inquiry. СЛУЖБА ( talk) 22:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"In Australia, corporal punishment in state schools is banned by law in three States; banned under ministerial guidelines or local educational policy in three others (but remains lawful under the defence of 'reasonable chastisement'); and remains available as a disciplinary option in another two States."
3+3+2=8. Australia has six states. I'm guessing the extra two "states" mentioned here are the Northern Territory and the ACT. Perhaps someone who knows which states are which could re-word this? 122.106.79.237 ( talk) 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is sorely imbalanced and needs a POV tag. It excellently presents and cites information about the effects of excessive corporal punishment, links that information to the genesis of child abusers, the potential for injury when applied to vulnerable body parts, and presents several cases of death or serious injury that occurred as a result of excessive corporal punishment. And while it's not perfect, the article does seem to draw a line between physical abuse, and proper corporal punishment. Yet there's not more than a single paltry sentence I've found that talks about the benefits of proper, appropriate corporal punishment, used as one tool among many for behavior modification. While there are many times, places, and wrongdoings that corporal punishment are inappropriate for, I can say that my own mother knew well when it was appropriate, and would let me argue if I thought it wasn't. Gradually, as I got older and more able to understand my own actions, and their consequences, spankings disappeared. It was never pleasant but I turned out a better person for it, and I'm thankful to her for being able to teach me right, wrong, and consequences. Back to the original point, while what is written in this article is extremely well-written, clear, cited, and professional, there is a lot in this article that remains unwritten. I will write some drafts tomorrow and do my part to expand this article. I think I will start with some sort of commonly agreed-upon differentiations between abuse and punishment. -- 68.224.178.2 ( talk) 03:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Here, from the American College of Pediatrics, is a set of guidelines on how corporal punishment should be administered. I think it illustrates exactly what differentiates corporal punishment and physical abuse. I will try to add a section outlining the differences. -- 68.224.178.2 ( talk) 05:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
"Yet there's not more than a single paltry sentence I've found that talks about the benefits of proper, appropriate corporal punishment, used as one tool among many for behavior modification." Well, I find it very hard to describe the "benefits" of violent behaviour. 80.223.152.10 ( talk) 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Just because you find it hard to describe the benefits of corporal punishment does not mean that there exists no one who can. Many people believe in corporal punishment, and there is very little effort made in this article to present a balanced view. It would be nice, from the perspective of neutrality, for there to be at least a recognition that there exist many who feel that spanking within certain parameters is appropriate and useful for discipline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.252.252 ( talk) 16:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I think that it should have a POV tag because it can go many ways... duh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.169.208 ( talk) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The maximum penalty allowed in the Roman Empire was 39 lashes with a whip, applied to the back and shoulders[...] In the Roman Empire (which covered most of Europe, Germany excepted, at its height) by Law the maximum penalty was 40 "lashes" or "strokes", though it was common practice to administer 39, to ensure the Law was not broken.
So which is it? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is mostly about school and domestic punishments - it should include other information too. I'm going to make a start. CheesyBiscuit ( talk) 11:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea - this article was quite long. CheesyBiscuit ( talk) 09:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
is prohibited by law for over four decades. Whether the law was daily broken or not even two decades ago is another thing. I'd like to know where you got that bulls* about Cz.rep. being the only country in EU without the law angainst it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muflon 83 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
i just looked at another source. it says it was prohibited in 1867. sorry but i am czech and i know what goes on in my country. i found your remark withouth actually citing where it comes from very infuriating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muflon 83 ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
ok, it was cited. but i still find your stance not neutral. let's say i'm wrong. why is there a map of europe only? don't tell me it doesn't make people who come to the page seeing one red dot in the middle saying "it's lawful here to hurt a child" feel that we are barbarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muflon 83 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
dear cuddlyable3, please refrain from flaming. your post has nothing to do with the article and since you wrote to my nick, it seems even without signing it explicitly, you can see who i am quite easily. i was angered about the tone used and didn't agree with the facts presented, which was discussed above, your itervention was uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muflon 83 ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
my anger is not misplaced as the comment "go tell your politics if you don't like it" is definitely not a comment about an article, rather a flame attempt with me as a target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muflon 83 ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me try to address the original concerns of Muflon 83. From what I understand, you are upset that
As I see it, the two first issues have been (at least partially) corrected. There is now a map of the US, and the European map has been fixed to show that France also has a similar legal situation to that of the Czech Republic. As for the last issue, according to WP:V, the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For any non-self-evident information we have to cite our sources, to prove that we did not make it up ourselves. When it comes to corporal punishment, there exists a very thorough list at Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (GIEACPC). The GIEACPC tables, however, only lists the judicial situation in each country. I agree that it would also be interesting to have maps detailing the actual prevalence of corporal punishment, school or otherwise. But in order for us to include that information we need a reliable source describing the prevalence in each country. Barring that, we are stuck with describing the legal situation. And the legal situation in the Czech Republic is that school corporal punishment is not explicitly illegal. If you disagree, a source claiming otherwise would be deeply appreciated.— Gabbe ( talk) 13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
this is obviously a mistake, I live in Czech Republic and any teacher that dares to touch a child or student is immediately fired, this is regulated by school laws and internal orders 85.70.34.198
Sorry for the long wait :) Thank you, Gabbe. I understand. That-Vella-Fella, you really should learn a little diplomacy, your remarks are if not a flame, at least disrespectful. The truth is there is no specific law against corporal punishment in Czech republic, at least to my knowledge, however cases are usually dealt with, when it (rarely since it basically doesn't happen) comes to a court, according to laws concerning assault on minor with the adult's social position being an aggravation. -- Muflon 83 ( talk) 22:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I moved the following passage here:
“ | The
United Nations
Committee on the Rights of the Child has consistently recommended States Parties to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment and other forms of violence against children in institutions, in schools, and in the home ... "To discipline or punish through physical harm is clearly a violation of the most basic of human rights. Research on corporal punishment has found it to be counterproductive and relatively ineffective, as well as dangerous and harmful to physical, psychological and social well being. While many States have developed child protection laws and systems, violence still continues to be inflicted upon children".
[1]
However, this interpretation by the Committee, in which it is taken as a given that even moderate corporal punishment constitutes "a form of violence", is not supported by the text of the Convention itself, which nowhere mentions the words corporal punishment, spanking, smacking, slapping, paddling or caning. [2] The Committee was set up to monitor implementation of the Convention. [3] The Committee is a body of experts (in the specialised UN sense of that word; they are mostly academics or bureaucrats) whose members come from certain UN member states ("States Parties") such as Algeria, Bangladesh, Paraguay and Qatar. [4] Although the UN describes these members as "elected", they are not accountable to anybody: the only democratic input to their appointment is by a secret ballot at a meeting of unelected representatives of UN member states. [5] Although half its members are not lawyers, and only three of the present members appear to have any experience as jurists, [6] the Committee of its own volition decided some time after the Convention had been signed by member states and come into force in 1990, and without any public consultation or democratic input, to interpret the text as meaning that parental spanking should be made a criminal offence. It is not stated on the UN website whether or not this interpretation has anywhere been tested in an actual court of law, either at an international level or in any country governed by the rule of law. The Committee thus arguably lays itself open to the charge of practising judicial activism without even being part of the judiciary. In the United States, which is not signatory to the Convention, corporal punishment of children by their parents is lawful in all 50 states, and in schools it remains legal in 21 states. Opinion remains sharply divided and there can be no conclusive evidence for or against. |
” |
While the above section cites various sources to support its argument, it also conducts a novel synthesis in order to reach the conclusion that the Committee on the Rights of the Child is unreliable. Furthermore, we have one paragraph mentioning what a source says and no less than four paragraphs detailing why that source is unreliable. If the Committee is not a reliable source, its conclusions should not be mentioned in the article.— Gabbe ( talk) 08:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Just as you say, we should fairly represent the opinions of both detractors and supporters. In the bit above however, the opinion of the Committee is presented, followed by a long argument over why their conclusions are biased. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to present the opinion of the Committee (with a source), followed by some notable pro-smacking person/group's rebuttal of the Committee's opinion (with a source to the statement by the pro-smacking group/person). But unsourced expressions like "experts (in the specialised UN sense of that word; they are mostly academics or bureaucrats)" don't belong unless we are citing some notable pro-smacking group/person. I think that almost all of the paragraphs above constitute a clear example of a novel synthesis of facts. The same goes for the rest of the section. When we are presenting opinions, we have to show that these opinions are those of notable proponents and detractors, and not just our own opinions as editors.— Gabbe ( talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
References
Italy's Supreme Court banned corporal punishment (including spanking) of children in 1996. Parents there may not physically punish their children at home or anywhere else. The map needs to reflect Italy's status correctly.-- MoebiusFlip ( talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Any chance other areas might get added to this article? Patiently waiting ( talk) 20:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems bad that the phrase "South America" (nor the names of any South American countries) appear anywhere in this article. Personman ( talk) 05:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Could a contributor include in this Wikipedia entry a short summary of Elizabeth Gershoff's 2002 meta-analysis published in Psychological Bulletin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iss246 ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I don’t know what the protocol is for colours used in these maps but I would have thought blue would be used for areas where it IS permissible, and red for where it is NOT permissible. Can anyone give any reason for this? Thanks. Zarcadia ( talk) 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
i wondered if there was any account of children with learning disabilities, within the amish communities. i could almost say that there were none or very little due to the lack of maybe tv and or radio. i am christian myself, but of the baptist faith and i have a grandson who has all kinds of emotional,learning,and behavioral problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.112.49 ( talk) 04:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
After a discussion on the List of deaths by corporal punishment page and the WP:BLP/N noticeboard there is a vague feeling we should merge content from the list article into this one and then redirect. Rather than a list I propose a new sections - something like Deaths due to corporal punishment. --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 10:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
With this edit, Alarics removed an addition made nine hours before by an IP account.
Alarics' comment was that "International law does not deal with corporal punishment. The Convention on the Rights of the Child makes no mention of it."
I agree that the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not have the phrase, "corporal punishment", or even the word, "corporal", anywhere in its text.
However, the implementing body, the United Nation's Committee on the Rights of the Child has "recommended prohibition of all corporal punishment, in the family and other settings, to more than 130 States in all continents." [3]
It has done this on the basis of "arts. 19; 28, para. 2; and 37, inter alia". I think that article 19.1 of the CRC has particular significance:
Because of this, I think that the CRC does deal with corporal punishment, and that the IP account's section can be reinserted.
Submitted for your discussion,
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 06:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I reworded the lead paragraph to remove the spurious distinction between corporal punishment and physical punishment. Material included in Wikipedia must be verifiable using "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ( WP:RELY), and such sources treat the two terms as synonymous. For instance, Oxford Dictionaries defines corporal punishment simply as "Physical punishment, such as caning or flogging". [1] There is no separate entry for physical punishment. A search for physical punishment on The Free Dictionary (Legal) merely redirects to "Corporal punishment". The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry mentions that physical punishment is "sometimes called corporal punishment". [2] — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 22:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Please update the maps by adding Peru (first map), Ireland (first & second map) and Estonia (second map) to the countries which have outlawed corporal punishment - source: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:506F:FFFF:0:0:524D:A610 ( talk) 04:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate image/hidden comment
|
---|
|
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I suggest propose merging
Campaigns against corporal punishment into this article. While such campaigns certainly exist, and they or their spokespersons have been quoted in news coverage of CP itself, such campaigns are not so much a topic of discussion in third-party published sources; therefore as a subject they seem to fail Wikipedia's general notability guideline (
Wikipedia:Notability). The existence of a separate article for discussion of campaigns against corporal punishment seems to invite POV forking, with points of view critical of CP potentially being segregated into that one article in violation of
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. More practically, much of the historical information on the "Campaigns" page would fit well into the section
Corporal punishment#History.
Coconutporkpie (
talk) 06:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose merging Campaigns against corporal punishment into the article Corporal punishment based on questions of notability and possible content forking.
— Coconutporkpie ( talk) 01:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hey there folks, is it possible to upload an image with information about the right spots in which parents should beat their kids up, how much it hurts, etc...
I seem to recall hearing corporal punishment was a crime against the state. Maybe it was Braveheart, where the corporal states "An assault against the King's soldiers is an assualt on the King himself!". Well, now with water boarding and the closing of Guantanamo, it might be the time to reinstate an old custom of discipline. I know, it's not cool to be athletic without performance enhancing drugs, let public relations make a statement. Why placate the criminals among us, lending our empathy without cause. When the politicians have had enough it will be cool to take the righteous stand. Maybe we will stand united. -- User talk:Halenmccracken79 —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
It's Gibberish.
On a more serious note, corporal punishment is intended as "punishment" not "retribution". The latter term is far too emotive, and not a word which would normally be used of a punishment. 125.237.104.55 ( talk) 02:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Just bunch of entries into the reference section in the article which may or may not have any great bearing on what's said within the article is not particularly useful. Use the established referencing conventions of the article. If the material is relevent, footnote it. If not, leave it out. 82.31.17.65 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
under "Related topics" in this template, I have placed this template on the page. While whether corporal punishment is itself abuse is disputed, whether it is considered to be related to the topic of abuse cannot be. The existence of such a debate warrants the placement of the template. Joie de Vivre 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
(undent) As I've said, the discussion to which Acq3 is referring is comprised of a total of six comments by four people. That short discussion did not resolve the dispute, nor was a consensus reached, so, in my view, the discussion should remain open. Also, it is my understanding that templates are navigational tools for reference between related articles, not article sections. I have never seen a template placed according to an article's section. The precedent I have observed at hundreds of other Wikipedia articles is to place template as close to the top of the article as possible. As it seems to be inappropriate to bury templates in the middle of articles, I have moved it back. Comments? Joie de Vivre 17:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The "forty stripes" limitation is found in Jewish law (see Deuteronomy 25:3) not Roman law. Further, St. Paul states that he received "forty stripes save one" five times FROM THE JEWS, see 2 Cor. 11:24, which indicates that the limitation was a feature of Jewish law, not the Romans. The legal scourging that preceded crucifixion, moreover, was for the purpose of weaking the prisoner's will to resist and hastening his death, and thus probably had no particular ritual or number of lashes associated with it. John Paul Parks ( talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The abuse template is slightly ridiculous. 195.92.40.49 13:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
My grandfather often used a length of rubber hose as a disciplinary tool. Is this practice common? Albino Bebop 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Yes, quite so. СЛУЖБА ( talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Corporal punishment does not only refer to spanking. It can refer to any form of inflicting pain to punish, including flogging, caning and other forms that go far beyond the bounds of spanking. Corporal punishment is a broad term and it is related to the topic of Abuse. Joie de Vivre 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The line has to be drawn somewhere as to what will be placed under "abuse" and what won't, and wherever the line is drawn, someone is going to be unhappy about it. When the U.N. says that something is abuse, that's as good a place to draw the line as we can have. Edwardsville 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What about corporal punishment on cats and dogs? Is there any mention of that in the article? If not, I think it should be mentioned. 4.235.120.12 14:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
"Ironically, while the research shows that corporal punishment is counterproductive for all children, it is even more counterproductive for boys than girls". Although this is given a source, I don't think this is a neutral point of view. There is a HUGE range of research that has been done and is being done. I'm changing it to "...Reasearch suggests that corporal punishment is potentially counterproductive..." 144.139.143.35 13:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Sammy
---Further note------ Although the above change is a step in the right direction, this article reads in a very biased manner. If a person gets 'burned' by doing some action (especially a child) they are far less likely to do it in future. I would have thought it obvious for the article to say it was an effective means of changing someone's behaviour. There's only one side of the story being presented here - some would argue that smacking actually has a positive effect on a person's behaviour and respect for others - of course there is a wide spectrum here, I'm not arguing it would be good for everyone - but if viewpoints are being presented in this article, then both should be included.
Ultimâ 14:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If science says one thing, and tradition another, is it biased to only give weight to science? I think not. Besides, the article mentions that it does help with short-term compliance (while interfering with longterm compliance of course). /Gusten
"The problem with the use of corporal punishment is that, if punishments are to maintain their efficacy, the amount of force required may have to be increased over successive punishments."
Um, punishing by increasing the intensity of an aversive stimulus over time does not work. Experimental work has demonstrated that. If you want punishment to work, then it needs to be severe for the first offense, and needs to remain constant (or, it can be allowed to /decrease/ over time).
The six penal principles are as such. To be effective,
1. Punishment must be swift.
2. Punishment must be certain.
3. Punishment must be severe for the first offense.
4. Punishment must not increase with consecutive uses, but should remain steady or decrease.
5. Punishment will not work if the punished behavior is made less desireable.
6. Punishment will not work if the punished behavior is the only route to a subject's desires.
Let's compare two examples where punishment is effective and where it isn't. Punishment is effective for putting your finger on a hot stove. It is swift: pain rises to an intolerable level within a fraction of a second. It is sure: you cannot escape being burned if you touch a hot stove. It is severe for the first offense: burns make the /worst/ kind of pain. The punishment remains consistent: every time you touch the hot stovetop, you get burned, and the pain is no less painful. The punished behavior is not particularly desireable: there's not much you could gain from touching a hot stove. And there are alternatives to touching a hot stove: you can touch anything else in your kitchen, or rest your hand anywhere on the counter.
Punishment is not effective for knocking over convenience stores. Punishment is not swift: it takes time for the state to find the perp, arrest him, try him, sentence him, and carry out the sentence. Punishment is not sure: the perp may get away clean, leaving no useful evidence behind. Punishment is not severe for the first offense: the perp might be sentenced to a couple of months in light-security prison, or even just get a sentence of community service or something. Punishment does not remain consistent: if you hold up another store, you get a harsher sentence to which you are somewhat inured by your first sentencing. The punished behavior has a significant payoff: a thief might make off with only a hundred dollars, but he would have had a good time while doing it. And the punished behavior is the easiest route for the perp to get his cash and his thrills, because who's going to hire a robber?
-- Dreamer (rutgers.edu)
Regretfully tagged this section. I think the author has a valid insight - but references are needed to show that it isn't just a perceptive piece of Original Research. The list of weapons used in various countries needs references to show that these are more than anecdotal or individual cases. DavidCooke 07:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good discipline resource. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/27.htm
The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.
The discipline page of this site includes articles containing extensive research and worthwhile advice on various forms of child discipline within the family and the classroom. Useful articles suggest ways to discipline a child, including forms of child discipline and safe measures for parents to take to control their children. Teamme 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
In footnote 25 it says It should be noted that neither the pro-spanking or anti-spanking studies are truly scientific - they cannot be modeled or reproduced by other researchers, and the studies are often heavily biased toward producing a result that affirms the researcher's personal beliefs. This strikes me as nonsense. If a study published in a journal as important as Pediatrics isn't truly scientific then what is? It seems that whoever wrote that has an understanding of science so limited that it would rule out as non-scientific anything that didn't meet the standards of physics or chemistry. Besides, there's no evidence that the studies are biased, and very strong evidence would be needed to support that claim considering the papers were published in well respected peer-reviewed journals. 190.44.37.148 ( talk) 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Is not this "Global progress towards achieving full prohibition of all corporal punishment of children is accelerating worldwide." NPOV 70.150.94.194 ( talk) 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a PNG editor, or I would make this map; it shows US States where Corporal punishment is allowed, not allowed, and sort of allowed. -- 72.213.17.222 ( talk) 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 01:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should have the "Global Initiative To Abolish All Corporal Punishment of Children" mentioned like it is in the lead section. It seems to make the whole lead section imply that corporal punishment for children is a bad thing. Maybe it should be rewritten so it just tells about the issue; I think some people could see this as taking a political stance. Just a thought. Thanks. SunDragon34 ( talk) 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Without question, this entire article is the most biased I have ever seen. There is no mention of opposing theory, even historic. Nearly every lead sentence is presented as logical fallacy. The article should be titled "Banishment of Corporal Punishment". To state that, "147 countries do not prohibit," is just silly. The second para is "Canada:". Look at the last sentence. This isn't an encyclopedic entry, it's a second-year mid-term ChildDev paper. 166.128.134.126 ( talk) 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to challenge the claim supported by reference [23] regarding sexual discrimination being given the force of law in Queensland schools. The article claims that it has been illegal to impose physical punishment in schools on girls since 1934 but is still permissible against boys. This is not completely correct. Queensland has, over the years, implemented regulations to slowly phase out corporal punishment in schools by gradually limiting what is and is not acceptable. Initially it was banned against girls over a certain age, then against all children under a certain age. In 1992 it was banned completely (against both boys and girls) in Queensland state schools. I would point out that the website referenced at [23] reflects this contention.
However, this “ban” is not law, it is merely executive policy administered by the Queensland Department of Education. Section 280 of the Criminal Code (Qld) provides that it is a defence to assault for a teacher (and parent, and person loco parentis) if the force was reasonable under the circumstances for the purpose of correcting the child’s behaviour. Thus, corporal punishment in Queensland state schools is not “illegal”, either, as section 280 provides teachers with a defence.
So neither is there, since 1992, effective sexual discrimination when it comes to the legality of corporal punishment, and nor is the practice actually illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstantStudier ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to tell a point about the map on corporal punishment in Europe: while spanish law effectively banned it at home recently, catalan civil right, which has the preeminency according to spanish laws, indeed allows parents to punish their children. Therefore, someone should change the coloring of the map. -- 217.125.97.102 ( talk) 21:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
-- I support this inquiry. СЛУЖБА ( talk) 22:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"In Australia, corporal punishment in state schools is banned by law in three States; banned under ministerial guidelines or local educational policy in three others (but remains lawful under the defence of 'reasonable chastisement'); and remains available as a disciplinary option in another two States."
3+3+2=8. Australia has six states. I'm guessing the extra two "states" mentioned here are the Northern Territory and the ACT. Perhaps someone who knows which states are which could re-word this? 122.106.79.237 ( talk) 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is sorely imbalanced and needs a POV tag. It excellently presents and cites information about the effects of excessive corporal punishment, links that information to the genesis of child abusers, the potential for injury when applied to vulnerable body parts, and presents several cases of death or serious injury that occurred as a result of excessive corporal punishment. And while it's not perfect, the article does seem to draw a line between physical abuse, and proper corporal punishment. Yet there's not more than a single paltry sentence I've found that talks about the benefits of proper, appropriate corporal punishment, used as one tool among many for behavior modification. While there are many times, places, and wrongdoings that corporal punishment are inappropriate for, I can say that my own mother knew well when it was appropriate, and would let me argue if I thought it wasn't. Gradually, as I got older and more able to understand my own actions, and their consequences, spankings disappeared. It was never pleasant but I turned out a better person for it, and I'm thankful to her for being able to teach me right, wrong, and consequences. Back to the original point, while what is written in this article is extremely well-written, clear, cited, and professional, there is a lot in this article that remains unwritten. I will write some drafts tomorrow and do my part to expand this article. I think I will start with some sort of commonly agreed-upon differentiations between abuse and punishment. -- 68.224.178.2 ( talk) 03:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Here, from the American College of Pediatrics, is a set of guidelines on how corporal punishment should be administered. I think it illustrates exactly what differentiates corporal punishment and physical abuse. I will try to add a section outlining the differences. -- 68.224.178.2 ( talk) 05:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
"Yet there's not more than a single paltry sentence I've found that talks about the benefits of proper, appropriate corporal punishment, used as one tool among many for behavior modification." Well, I find it very hard to describe the "benefits" of violent behaviour. 80.223.152.10 ( talk) 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Just because you find it hard to describe the benefits of corporal punishment does not mean that there exists no one who can. Many people believe in corporal punishment, and there is very little effort made in this article to present a balanced view. It would be nice, from the perspective of neutrality, for there to be at least a recognition that there exist many who feel that spanking within certain parameters is appropriate and useful for discipline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.252.252 ( talk) 16:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I think that it should have a POV tag because it can go many ways... duh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.169.208 ( talk) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The maximum penalty allowed in the Roman Empire was 39 lashes with a whip, applied to the back and shoulders[...] In the Roman Empire (which covered most of Europe, Germany excepted, at its height) by Law the maximum penalty was 40 "lashes" or "strokes", though it was common practice to administer 39, to ensure the Law was not broken.
So which is it? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is mostly about school and domestic punishments - it should include other information too. I'm going to make a start. CheesyBiscuit ( talk) 11:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea - this article was quite long. CheesyBiscuit ( talk) 09:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
is prohibited by law for over four decades. Whether the law was daily broken or not even two decades ago is another thing. I'd like to know where you got that bulls* about Cz.rep. being the only country in EU without the law angainst it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muflon 83 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
i just looked at another source. it says it was prohibited in 1867. sorry but i am czech and i know what goes on in my country. i found your remark withouth actually citing where it comes from very infuriating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muflon 83 ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
ok, it was cited. but i still find your stance not neutral. let's say i'm wrong. why is there a map of europe only? don't tell me it doesn't make people who come to the page seeing one red dot in the middle saying "it's lawful here to hurt a child" feel that we are barbarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muflon 83 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
dear cuddlyable3, please refrain from flaming. your post has nothing to do with the article and since you wrote to my nick, it seems even without signing it explicitly, you can see who i am quite easily. i was angered about the tone used and didn't agree with the facts presented, which was discussed above, your itervention was uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muflon 83 ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
my anger is not misplaced as the comment "go tell your politics if you don't like it" is definitely not a comment about an article, rather a flame attempt with me as a target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muflon 83 ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me try to address the original concerns of Muflon 83. From what I understand, you are upset that
As I see it, the two first issues have been (at least partially) corrected. There is now a map of the US, and the European map has been fixed to show that France also has a similar legal situation to that of the Czech Republic. As for the last issue, according to WP:V, the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For any non-self-evident information we have to cite our sources, to prove that we did not make it up ourselves. When it comes to corporal punishment, there exists a very thorough list at Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (GIEACPC). The GIEACPC tables, however, only lists the judicial situation in each country. I agree that it would also be interesting to have maps detailing the actual prevalence of corporal punishment, school or otherwise. But in order for us to include that information we need a reliable source describing the prevalence in each country. Barring that, we are stuck with describing the legal situation. And the legal situation in the Czech Republic is that school corporal punishment is not explicitly illegal. If you disagree, a source claiming otherwise would be deeply appreciated.— Gabbe ( talk) 13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
this is obviously a mistake, I live in Czech Republic and any teacher that dares to touch a child or student is immediately fired, this is regulated by school laws and internal orders 85.70.34.198
Sorry for the long wait :) Thank you, Gabbe. I understand. That-Vella-Fella, you really should learn a little diplomacy, your remarks are if not a flame, at least disrespectful. The truth is there is no specific law against corporal punishment in Czech republic, at least to my knowledge, however cases are usually dealt with, when it (rarely since it basically doesn't happen) comes to a court, according to laws concerning assault on minor with the adult's social position being an aggravation. -- Muflon 83 ( talk) 22:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I moved the following passage here:
“ | The
United Nations
Committee on the Rights of the Child has consistently recommended States Parties to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment and other forms of violence against children in institutions, in schools, and in the home ... "To discipline or punish through physical harm is clearly a violation of the most basic of human rights. Research on corporal punishment has found it to be counterproductive and relatively ineffective, as well as dangerous and harmful to physical, psychological and social well being. While many States have developed child protection laws and systems, violence still continues to be inflicted upon children".
[1]
However, this interpretation by the Committee, in which it is taken as a given that even moderate corporal punishment constitutes "a form of violence", is not supported by the text of the Convention itself, which nowhere mentions the words corporal punishment, spanking, smacking, slapping, paddling or caning. [2] The Committee was set up to monitor implementation of the Convention. [3] The Committee is a body of experts (in the specialised UN sense of that word; they are mostly academics or bureaucrats) whose members come from certain UN member states ("States Parties") such as Algeria, Bangladesh, Paraguay and Qatar. [4] Although the UN describes these members as "elected", they are not accountable to anybody: the only democratic input to their appointment is by a secret ballot at a meeting of unelected representatives of UN member states. [5] Although half its members are not lawyers, and only three of the present members appear to have any experience as jurists, [6] the Committee of its own volition decided some time after the Convention had been signed by member states and come into force in 1990, and without any public consultation or democratic input, to interpret the text as meaning that parental spanking should be made a criminal offence. It is not stated on the UN website whether or not this interpretation has anywhere been tested in an actual court of law, either at an international level or in any country governed by the rule of law. The Committee thus arguably lays itself open to the charge of practising judicial activism without even being part of the judiciary. In the United States, which is not signatory to the Convention, corporal punishment of children by their parents is lawful in all 50 states, and in schools it remains legal in 21 states. Opinion remains sharply divided and there can be no conclusive evidence for or against. |
” |
While the above section cites various sources to support its argument, it also conducts a novel synthesis in order to reach the conclusion that the Committee on the Rights of the Child is unreliable. Furthermore, we have one paragraph mentioning what a source says and no less than four paragraphs detailing why that source is unreliable. If the Committee is not a reliable source, its conclusions should not be mentioned in the article.— Gabbe ( talk) 08:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Just as you say, we should fairly represent the opinions of both detractors and supporters. In the bit above however, the opinion of the Committee is presented, followed by a long argument over why their conclusions are biased. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to present the opinion of the Committee (with a source), followed by some notable pro-smacking person/group's rebuttal of the Committee's opinion (with a source to the statement by the pro-smacking group/person). But unsourced expressions like "experts (in the specialised UN sense of that word; they are mostly academics or bureaucrats)" don't belong unless we are citing some notable pro-smacking group/person. I think that almost all of the paragraphs above constitute a clear example of a novel synthesis of facts. The same goes for the rest of the section. When we are presenting opinions, we have to show that these opinions are those of notable proponents and detractors, and not just our own opinions as editors.— Gabbe ( talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
References
Italy's Supreme Court banned corporal punishment (including spanking) of children in 1996. Parents there may not physically punish their children at home or anywhere else. The map needs to reflect Italy's status correctly.-- MoebiusFlip ( talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Any chance other areas might get added to this article? Patiently waiting ( talk) 20:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems bad that the phrase "South America" (nor the names of any South American countries) appear anywhere in this article. Personman ( talk) 05:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Could a contributor include in this Wikipedia entry a short summary of Elizabeth Gershoff's 2002 meta-analysis published in Psychological Bulletin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iss246 ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I don’t know what the protocol is for colours used in these maps but I would have thought blue would be used for areas where it IS permissible, and red for where it is NOT permissible. Can anyone give any reason for this? Thanks. Zarcadia ( talk) 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
i wondered if there was any account of children with learning disabilities, within the amish communities. i could almost say that there were none or very little due to the lack of maybe tv and or radio. i am christian myself, but of the baptist faith and i have a grandson who has all kinds of emotional,learning,and behavioral problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.112.49 ( talk) 04:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
After a discussion on the List of deaths by corporal punishment page and the WP:BLP/N noticeboard there is a vague feeling we should merge content from the list article into this one and then redirect. Rather than a list I propose a new sections - something like Deaths due to corporal punishment. --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 10:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
With this edit, Alarics removed an addition made nine hours before by an IP account.
Alarics' comment was that "International law does not deal with corporal punishment. The Convention on the Rights of the Child makes no mention of it."
I agree that the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not have the phrase, "corporal punishment", or even the word, "corporal", anywhere in its text.
However, the implementing body, the United Nation's Committee on the Rights of the Child has "recommended prohibition of all corporal punishment, in the family and other settings, to more than 130 States in all continents." [3]
It has done this on the basis of "arts. 19; 28, para. 2; and 37, inter alia". I think that article 19.1 of the CRC has particular significance:
Because of this, I think that the CRC does deal with corporal punishment, and that the IP account's section can be reinserted.
Submitted for your discussion,
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 06:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I reworded the lead paragraph to remove the spurious distinction between corporal punishment and physical punishment. Material included in Wikipedia must be verifiable using "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ( WP:RELY), and such sources treat the two terms as synonymous. For instance, Oxford Dictionaries defines corporal punishment simply as "Physical punishment, such as caning or flogging". [1] There is no separate entry for physical punishment. A search for physical punishment on The Free Dictionary (Legal) merely redirects to "Corporal punishment". The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry mentions that physical punishment is "sometimes called corporal punishment". [2] — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 22:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Please update the maps by adding Peru (first map), Ireland (first & second map) and Estonia (second map) to the countries which have outlawed corporal punishment - source: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:506F:FFFF:0:0:524D:A610 ( talk) 04:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate image/hidden comment
|
---|
|
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I suggest propose merging
Campaigns against corporal punishment into this article. While such campaigns certainly exist, and they or their spokespersons have been quoted in news coverage of CP itself, such campaigns are not so much a topic of discussion in third-party published sources; therefore as a subject they seem to fail Wikipedia's general notability guideline (
Wikipedia:Notability). The existence of a separate article for discussion of campaigns against corporal punishment seems to invite POV forking, with points of view critical of CP potentially being segregated into that one article in violation of
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. More practically, much of the historical information on the "Campaigns" page would fit well into the section
Corporal punishment#History.
Coconutporkpie (
talk) 06:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose merging Campaigns against corporal punishment into the article Corporal punishment based on questions of notability and possible content forking.
— Coconutporkpie ( talk) 01:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)