Talk:Corporal punishment/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

This is an archive of discussion from Talk:Corporal punishment until 4 December 2005. Please do not alter it, but do conduct further discussion on the main talk page.

Contents

My 2c

I removed the following section

While administrating corporal punishment to children can relieve the parent's stress, many psychologists contend that corporal punishment defies its purpose, breaking the trust between children and parents. Many violent criminals suffered some form of corporal punishment during childhood, which was possibly a determining factor in influencing their behaviour. On the other hand, many people who received corporal punishment during childhood lead normal lives.

for the following reason: This section is very biased and, Stress of a parent is seldom the reason for corporal punishment of children and, Many violent criminals suffered corporal punishment is like saying most criminals are known to drink water.... not a good argument and we are not suppose to make arguments

Below is my pov about this subject.

I can tell within 5 minutes kids who do not receive corporal punishment at all. They are disrespectful, do not listen, are ill behaved.

Also.... Even if someone harshly (even abusively) punishes a child for something the child knows was wrong, it does far less damage than using verbal abuse such as saying ..."you stupid kid, I'm ashamed of you, I regret having you, you are a worthless piece of #### .... and so on"

I have known several people who have been harshly, I would call abusively, punished as kids for something they did wrong... They brag about how they took the punishment, and vow not to do that to their children (and don't)...

I've never heard anyone ever brag how well they took verbal lashing....but have seen kids destroyed by it, then repeat the behavior to their kids.

just my two cents

NPOV tag

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)

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)
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)
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)
Agreed -- having 3 pros for every con is hardy objective, and this is a touchy subject with many (think: abused spouces, children, etc.) Its like having a section on murder that mainly defends it. (( Kigoe 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC) ))

Older bias arguments

Whole slabs of this article are clearly biased. The article refers to holding an attitude "even as the permissive era draws to a close." The permissive era? That's a fairly contentious notion, and I think it exemplifies the tone of the article: there's an implicit assumtion that corporal punishment is fine and good. That's an opinion, and whoever's been contributing to the article is entitled to hold it, but it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Regrettably, I don't feel qualified to Wikify the article, as my own knowledge of the matter is limited - I have my own biases, and I don't want to simply replace when set of biases with another. If anyone out there thinks they can bring this up to scratch, that'd be nice.

What I do feel qualified to change is a very simple word: "this" to "that," in regard to the traditions of parental authority in the U.S. This is the World Wide Web - it's safe to assume that some of us out here aren't from the U.S. It'd be a minor issue in isolation, but it's another instance of a NPOV violation in an article full of them.

    • While I, personally, advocate corporal punishment, I agree. Comments like "permissive era" or taking one side or the other defeats the purpose of wikipedia; an open online encylopedia with a neutral point of view. Someone needs to "wikify" this, definitely. Tom S.

I removed a passage of text because it was simply a persons own experiences, not particularly well written. While a persons own experiences are certainly valid in some ways, with this particularly emotive subject I could see a situation developing where dozens of people simply added personal anecdotes with no informative value.

I find some of the text questionable:

"There is also the argument that without recourse to the short, sharp smack parents may use forms of emotional violence that are actually more abusive. 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." I've never heard about this. I'd like to see some proove (external links etc).

"The social science research shows that moderate corporal punishment is quick, safe and effective (and literally superficial) --" I've never heard about this kind of researches.

I also added other countries which have banned the all use of corporal punishment to the text.

Unsourced text removed from the article

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)

UK SCHOOLGIRL CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Taken from a Television Documentary February 1991

The Last School to Cane its Girls

There is still one school in the UK which still canes girls for misbehaving.The private Rodney School in Nottinghamshire carries out the punishment with fullapproval of the Equal Opportunties Commission.The Headmistress of the school belives that if boys are beaten then girls must be too.

The Headmistress insisted 'I dont cane the children to hurt them'. 'Only to shame them'.'Of course the girls deserve equal punishmnet'.'Boys can be more boisterous but girls can be far more devious'.'Children often need putting in their place bringing them down a peg or two'.

The Headmistress who has run the school for 47 years and admits she even beat her own daughter when she was a pupil will use the cane or the slipper if the girls misbehave in school.

Of the 580 senior independent schools in the UK only seven others use Corporal Punishment and then only on boys.But David Thomas of the Equal Opportunities Commission siad schools that continue to use the cane must punish both sexes.

At Rodney School set on magnificent parkland near Newark the girls support their Headmistress who canes them.One 15 year old pupil said 'I had the choice of being gated for three weekends or getting the cane'. 'I decided to have the cane because it would be quicker'.She received three swipes on her open palm after being caught going into town in home clothes instaed of her school uniform added 'If you have done something wrong you should pay for it'.

Her friend a 16 year old girl was also caned in the school for being caught in her dormitory with another girl and some boys when she was 12 she received three strokes of the cane on each hand for this misbehaviour.

Corporal punishment was abolished in UK State Schools in `987 but continued in the private sector until 1999.


CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN UK SCHOOLS NOVEMBER 1948

MOLLY and Freda, Kathleen, Edna and Sylvia - "the Herongate girls" - are on strike from school and they say, nothing short of forgiveness and the promise of no more caning will get them back again.

All of them have played truant, with their parents' consent, for almost a week, and every day, instead of catching the special bus that should take them from their homes at Herongate to the Brentwood Senior School, three miles away, they wave to their school friends as the bus goes by.

Molly Abbott, aged 12, and Freda, aged 14, are sisters who live in a council house on the Ingrave-road. Kathleen Turner, nearly 15, lives next door. Edna Lee, aged 13, and Sylvia Austin, aged 13, both live about half a mile away.

They Sang

Nearly three weeks ago the "Herongate Girls", with most of the girls on the special bus, were singing "Roll Out the Barrel" and "Run, Rabbit, Run" and other songs on their way home.

The bus conductor and the driver joined in and enjoyed the sing-song. "But Dawn Bloomfield, our prefect, reported us," said Molly to me to-day.

"Two days afterwards Miss James, the headmistress, sent for seven or eight of us and gave us the cane. Dawn was not at school that day, but when she came back three of us - including me - hit her. I pulled her hair for being a tell-tale.

"Her sister went to the school and told Miss James. Then eight of us were put on the stage in the hall and Miss James caned us in front of all the other girls in the school. We ran home and I haven't been back to school since."

'Not Fair'

Mrs. Abbott, Molly's mother, said: "I don't think it's fair that the headmistress should cane the girls for such a simple thing as singing on the bus." Mrs. Turner, Kathleen's mother, told me that her girl had only six weeks or so to remain at school, before she was due to leave.

"I would have taken her back to school to-day but her cousin told me yesterday that Miss James has paraded the whole school and from the stage told them that she had not finished with the Herongate Girls yet.

"According to Kathleen's cousin, Miss James said that when they go back they will either be expelled or caned again. Kathleen won't go back now."

At the school Miss James was "not present" when I called, but had left a message that she did not wish to make any comment.


I found the "criminals received corporal punishment" alone quite biased, so I decided to add that not all people who received this kind of punishment turn into criminals.

Linkspamming

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)

  • As soon as people start using language such as "vast, constantly growing website entirely devoted to various forms of corporal punishment in various countries and circles, combining press reports, legislation, testimony etcetera" they've moved from information to advertising. This is linkspamming, pure and simple.

If the legend you quote is your problem, because its sounds like publicity although every word is true, and seems to me worth knowing since this happens to touch most aspects of this very subject, -and by the way I have no link whatsoever with CorPun, nor did I even have the honour to converse with its driving force- then by all means feel free to cut it down to a less 'suggestive' label, as long as genuinely interested readers aren't denied easy access to such a vast etc. . Fastifex 13:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Can we please have people signing their posts so that there's a chance of others following the debate. I see no problem at all with specific links to the corpun website, so long as they follow the normal guidelines. I've inserted a link to their mainpage at the bottom of the article, along with other general interesting links. The Land 14:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Types and Means: New article? Original Research?

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)

  • As the main contributor to this article, especially nearly all of Types and Means (which is by no means completed yet, let alone complete), I'm delightened you find it all interesting; calling it mainly analysis is rather to much flattery: I'm sure a freshly applied analytic mind could examin this material and use it to develop insights we have not yet ventured into. Hopefully you and others can start by contributing more facts (and/or other usefull sources) so as to balance the size of the section, either within Scope of use or, even better, aspects nobody touched yet. When I created the present structure (there was little else then a definition and some Controversy) I intended precisely to allow the reader to navigate via the Contents between facts and views, as there is no better gestation area for dumb prejudice then pontificating without any care whether orator and audience even know what they are going on about - so I can't think of a worse move then isolating Types and Means (by the way, under what title? on its own, it might almost seem a course in repression, or an AI report) as it would leave C.P. rather empty. Of course it would be impossible to come up with a fraction of this encyclopedic material by truely original research, but as far as I know a relatively comprehensive, systematical and surveyable approach is hard to find, sources are either very limited in scope or a bit of a labyrinth (I think of CorPun here, but it's amazing how much work is already being done here to gather that much material and even add some critical notes), requiring weeks to get even half of the building blocks found Fastifex 12:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The 'types and means' section is very long and meandering, and actually is a "bit of a labyrinth" itself. It needs to be condensed and cleaned up (for example putting periods at the end of sentences, using paragraphs, spelling (whether is incorrectly spelled as wether several times), etc.) I would make the changes myself but the entire section needs to be cut out, IMO, see my comment under Talk:Corporal_punishment#Cleanup below.--Kewp (t) 11:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Editing required

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)

Where are the statistical studies???

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)

Statistics section

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)

This subsection is meant only for numerical data relevant to substantiate claims pro or contra, e.g. revealing the effects, NOT for 'dry' data such as on the occurrence of corporal punishments or the %-spread of opinions

  • CAUTION - there is truth in the saying you can prove anything by statistics; interpretation is often subjective, questions suggestive, samples less then representative or unbalanced, comparing data from different periods may be clouded by relevant other developments, etc.
(room for many concise statistics -please state and/or link the source- and precisely
labeled links; objective critical considerations -not opinions- are also welcome,
it italics either alongside if specific or above if of a general nature)
  • when an Ohio village had its marshall publicly strap over 200 juveniles from 8 to 15 in 1937, their 'delinquency' dropped 60% [[1]] considering the 'gravest' offence was school truancy, punished by flogging every evening for a month, one wonders how 40% dared continue any mischief - maybe including things they did not imagine being punished for?
  • after the abolition of school C.P. in South Africa, the failure rate of matric students rose from under 50% under Apartheid to 60% by 1999 [[2]]
but many schools also got other handicaps, e.g. race-mixed classes may simply be less efficient

Which way?

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)

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)

On the contrary, you seem unable (or unwilling? - I hope not) to distinguish between (the sections devoted to) fact and opinion: the whole Controversy section is only meant as the last (this phenomenon, distinct from CP itself, is however as noteworthy as say abolitionism before the end of slavery, albeit not my fancy), but is taken for more by some- I therefore isolate it as a separate Section at the back, and put the POV-tag on that, since it seems to be the only one attracting such criticism, which is as inevitable (it ARE opinions) as pointless (for the very same reason) except insofar as it gets confused with fact. I would like nothing better then create ANOTHER (sub)section with scientifically irrefutable statistics, but nobody has contributed any yet (otherwise the whole methodology idea would have had no reason of existence). The next logical step seems to me to put the 'dubious' statistics back in as a Subsection thereof, as they are at least noteworthy as opiniatory claims Fastifex 13:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)

Removed section

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)

Types and Means - Remove, Rework?

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)

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)

I disagree, the "Types and Means" section reads more like an newspaper editorial and less like factual information. It's heresay and partial misrepresentation of facts. It's writen in dramatic prose, questionable terms are used as synonyms for corporal punishment and the author states his opinion a few times. This section should be removed completely. Instead of leaving it and trying to fix it, remove it and try to add back the few usable pieces of information such as the anatomical targets of punishment, sans opinion and bias.

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

Snipped from top of article

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)

This person claims "bias" against corporal punishment, and then adds a much worse bias in favor of it.

It is true that not all victims of this kind of abuse become "criminals." Those who don't become criminals become fascists, or "bad cops."

There can be no doubt that violent crime in America is higher among blacks than whites. Likewise, there can be no doubt that child discipline is more violent among blacks than whites. Who could fail to see a correlation, there?

-Again, quote studies or figures. Possible post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. 202.156.6.54 09:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There can be no doubt that child discipline is more violent in the states which fought on the side of slavery. Wherever you find child discipline more violent, you will find a greater degree of racism, fascism, or some other such negative political climate.

Those supporting corporal punishment of children say that it's better than harsh words. Well, remember the old saying: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me."

I suppose that parents whipping their children mercilessly, or teachers in school who do it, never utter a harsh word in combination with the physical punishment!

They say that "harsh words tear down self-esteem," yet they whine endlessly about how we BUILD UP children's self-esteem. Do they consider the problem that we are BUILDING UP their self-esteem too much, or that we are TEARING IT DOWN too much?

Can they really expect to make the argument BOTH WAYS ?

I believe that it is too extreme to say that we should "never" use spanking of any sort. I believe that young children should be aware of what spanking IS, and that it is a possible punishment.

They should be "shown the instruments." Here is a paddle. Here is a leather strap. Here is how grandma used to "cut a switch" for herself when she was a little girl. A hairbrush might be used, or a wooden spoon.

Of course, for small children, a yardstick or a fly-swatter might be used.

We should tell them, "This is how it used to be. And we might use this method if we think we have to. But we don't want to do it, and we don't think it's the best way to raise a child."

Eric Underdog link title

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/r/Talk%7ECorporal_punishment_Archive01_3fa2.html"