Talk:Corporal punishment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.


Archive 1, Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Referencing

Just dumping a vague 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)

[edit] Abuse template

As Corporal punishment is listed 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)

This one has already been thrashed out in great detail, if you read the older talk pages. The problem with sticking the abuse template on is that it gives disproportionate prominence to the concept of abuse in what has been for most of history and much of the world a normal way of disciplining children. 195.92.40.49 09:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I hardly think that a total of six comments by four people constitutes "great detail", and it certainly does not constitute consensus. The discussion remains open. I do not agree that inclusion of the template is inappropriate. Corporal punishment has been banned in seventeen countries, with two more countries currently hearing such legislation. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities "are unacceptable" and "should never be used".
Now, your argument was that corporal punishment is considered in some parts of the world to be "a normal way of disciplining children". But it's not as though we are adding this template to the Spanking article, which is the more typical word for using pain to discipline children. Corporal punishment is a much broader category includes whipping with leather, caning, and other severe methods of inflicting pain which, if inflicted on children, would be grounds for arrest in many developed countries. Shelving the term "corporal punishment" under the heading of "child discipline" deliberately ignores the broader scope of the term, which addresses severe physical pain inflicted on children or adults for punishment. The fact that entire countries have banned these practice signifies that many people consider these forms corporal punishment to be abusive. In the Abuse template, corporal punishment is not listed under "Forms of abuse". It's listed under "Related topics". The widely-held view that corporal punishment is related to abuse must not be censored. Joie de Vivre 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Putting the abuse template on is pretty clearly POV, as it necessarily implies that corporal punishment is related to abuse. This is not a neutral viewpoint. 82.18.202.240 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
But it is objectively true that corporal punishment, as a topic, is related to abuse, as a topic -- simply because there is a notable number of people in the world who assert (however controversially) that corporal punishment sometimes or always constitutes abuse. Including {{abuse}} and calling the subjects related does not endorse either side of this debate; it merely acknowledges the debate's existence and provides a navigational aid that's relevant to it. Describing a debate this way isn't POV, it's textbook NPOV. A link to corporal punishment belongs in {{abuse}}, under the "Related topics" header, for the same reason. All further subtleties of the issue can be handled neutrally in the text of the appropriate articles, not in boxes or sidebars. –Sommers (Talk) 04:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It's POV to remove the Abuse template from this page, because many people find the topic of corporal punishment to be related to the topic of abuse. Joie de Vivre 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Per my changes the last(?) time this was hashed out (and I believe a change that was stable for a significant period of time) I am going to move the template down within the article to balance the inclusion (definately relevant) vs prominance (not abuse, related) concerns. I look forward to further discussion but would request that all parties review all the Talk archives so as to see the history of this issue and preclude rearguing any covered points. Thanks, Acq3 05:23, 12 February 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)

Some templates, which are navigational tools, regularly go at the bottoms of articles. See the template at the bottom of the birth control articles, or the one at the bottom of the vitamin articles. Similarly, the "See Also" section is navigational and regularly goes at the bottom. --Coppertwig 23:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Those are wide horizontal templates. I can't find any instances of a tall, narrow, right-justified bookmark-style template being buried within an article. Joie de Vivre 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a first time for everything. Is there any reason not to have the template lower down, other than it not having been done quite like that before? --Coppertwig 03:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that the reason we don't see that trend is because burying a navigational template within an article severely reduces its usefulness and ease of use. That is exactly why we should not do that here. Joie de Vivre 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torture, slavery, the Holocaust and ... corporal punishment

The abuse template is slightly ridiculous. 195.92.40.49 13:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Corporal punishment does not only refer to Spanking. There is a separate Spanking article, which is not included in the Abuse template. Corporal punishment can refer to military beatings so severe as to cause death. Corporal punishment, a broader term than "spanking", must remain as part of the Abuse template. Joie de Vivre 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, if it's causing death it's not actually corporal punishment, but capital punishment. The definitions of corporal punishment (such as in law) specifically exclude abusive behaviour, much in the same way as tapping someone on the shoulder to draw their attention is distinguished from assault. The important difference is not just in the type of behaviour indulged in, but also in the end result of that behaviour. Thus, there's a distinct difference between applying a small amount of electricity to a person's body in electrolysis, in order to remove hair, and a large amount of electricity to a body in order to perform an execution. 62.25.106.209 09:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The injuries caused by a severe beating may lead to death. Corporal punishment does not magically tranform into capital punishment just because the person dies. The intention may not be to kill, but the acts may be so severe as to lead to death. Joie de Vivre 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other implements

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)

[edit] Abuse template

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)

[edit] Corporal punishment on pets

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)

You could try Animal abuse, look for references and add the section yourself. Joie de Vivre 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/r/Talk%7ECorporal_punishment_d92f.html"