Talk:Corporal punishment/Archive 3

spots
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...


 * First of all, this sentence is biased: "right spots", "should beat [...] up". If you absolutely want to include such an image, change your wording. And on a personal note: I'm slightly grossed out by the fact that such an image even exists. --85.179.197.112 (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there are some US Christian fundamentalist websites that have "how to spank your child" instructions. I don't think we need that here. Alarics (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Discipline
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).


 * Am I alone in finding the above contribution incomprehensible? Alarics (talk) 09:24, 26 April 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)

Referencing
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)


 * This one has already been thrashed out in 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 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, 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)


 * I disagree with the excuse that it has been used throughout history as a means of "discipline" -- hangings, electrocutions and stoning have been used throughout history and they are now banned in most countries/states of the world. Again, adding the abuse template does not categorise corporal punishment as abuse, just a related (and disputed) topic. --J. Atkins (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Source of Limitations
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)

Torture, slavery 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)


 * According to the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, a United Nations (UNICEF) supported organisation, corporal punishment is a "fundamental breach of human rights" and forbidden by United Nations human rights law. See and . If one is to go by this, then it is effectively a "human rights abuse", but on the abuse template Corporal punishment is under "related topics" as is a matter of such debate concerning its use in the modern world. Therefore, it is not actually categorised on the abuse template as "abuse", merely a related topic which some consider abuse and vice versa. In my opinion, the abuse template should be kept on this page, especially when you consider that excessive corporal punishment is considered abuse in some jurisdictions. --J. Atkins (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Global Initiative says CP is forbidden by UN human rights law. But they would say that, because they are campaining against corporal punishment. They are obviously POV on the question of corporal punishment. Wikipedia has to be neutral about it. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Global Initiative cites to justify its claims, does not in fact mention the words "corporal punishment" anywhere. -- Ffaarrrreellll (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

-- Yes, quite so. СЛУЖБА (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * It is related to the topic of abuse, yes - but that doesn't mean that we can assert as fact that it is inherently a "form of abuse", when clearly that is a matter of opinion. The template should be rejigged to reflect this.


 * There are arguments both for and against corporal punishment in any given situation, but by having that template in its current form at the top of the article, we're sending out the message "Wikipedia thinks corporal punishment is always a bad thing". The article is supposed to be neutral, but the template completely kills that. 217.155.20.163 19:41, 24 May 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)


 * The UN should draw the line on such matters? The purpose of the UN is to prevent war and promote peaceful pursuits in life, not tell families what traditions and culture they may or may not practice. It is interesting to note that all the green countries on the map are non-Western, and many were once part of the Axis Powers. There seems to be a cultural clash here between the East and West once again. Jcchat66 15:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked, resorting to violence wasn't peaceful. So drawing a line against it is "promoting peaceful pursuits in life". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.222 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That is your just own point of view. Another widespread point of view is that moderate and reasonable corporal punishment does not constitute "violence". A more "peaceful" world might, for all you know, be achieved by bringing young people up in a more disciplined manner. It is not for Wikipedia to take sides in these matters. -- Alarics (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Corporal punishment is a form of violence by its very definition. 82.95.211.156 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not "by its very definition", no. It depends how you define "corporal punishment" and it depends how you define "violence". All this playing with words achieves nothing. Those who oppose corporal punishment must stop trying to use Wikipedia to push their POV. -- Alarics (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most countries have removed corporal punishment from their judicial systems. So the opposer's don't "push their POV". BTW from Wikipedia: "Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against one or more people, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt." and "violent behavior is defined as intentional physically aggressive behavior against another person." Fits perfectly corporal punishment. 217.225.75.213 (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * I think many people agree that use of so-called "corporal punishment" on domestic pets is Animal abuse / cruelty. --J. Atkins (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I love my dogs, but it had never occurred to me that people believed a smack with a newspaper if they didn't stop barking was wrong. There is no way that can be considered abuse, unless its considered mental abuse. The point of corporal punishment on a dog isn't to harm the animal, but to make it aware that you don't approve of what its doing. And as far as I know, all my dogs want is for me to approve of them, which I do. And I looove their floppy ears :D Oggleboppiter 05:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Counter-productive?
"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


 * Is it biased to only give weight to science? Of course it is! We are making new traditions based on science today, which may be overturned as tradition in the future, which often happens in history. Traditions don't come out of thin air, but often from what was considered factual at the time, or from experience, or from fear even. Science thought blood-letting was effective, too, or everything revolved around the earth. And centuries from now, what are future scientists going to say about what scientists thought today? So yes, it is VERY biased to consider only science, if for no other reason that the scientist may be proven wrong later, or they didn't have all the info they needed after all. The scientific method demands that we not be biased at all, for any reason. Obviously Gusten is not a scientist! Jcchat66 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Penal principles
"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)


 * And this serves what purpose? Who whote the six penal principles? Another idealist? Jcchat66 15:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ritual and punishment
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)

Request a link
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)


 * -- Maybe so, but this isn't a Wikipedia article about worthwhile advice on how to discipline a child. It is a Wikipedia article about corporal punishment. The article should confine itself to explaining, without opinions or value-judgements one way or the other, what corporal punishment was and/or is and how it was and is used. Ffaarrrreellll (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What is scientific
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)


 * One could indeed argue that "research" in matters of this kind is not susceptible of the kind of empirical proof which is possible in physics or chemistry experiments, since you can never isolate all the possible factors, and that therefore it can never be "scientific" in the sense that physics and chemistry are. At best, you might tentatively be able to show that there is a degree of statistical correlation, but you cannot prove a causal connection. Ffaarrrreellll (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Is not this "Global progress towards achieving full prohibition of all corporal punishment of children is accelerating worldwide." NPOV70.150.94.194 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I've tried to make it more neutral. Ffaarrrreellll (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

US Map
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)
 * Done! &mdash;Gabbe (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons
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)

Lead section?
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)

Corporal punishment giving sexual discrimination the force of law in Queensland?
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)


 * There are certain (private) schools in QLD (Brisbane Boys' College for example) where corporal punishment is actually allowed due to the parents' signing a compulsory enrollment indemnity form allowing corporal punishment. This right is rarely exercised, however, and the last I remember hearing of a student facing such a penalty was about five years ago. That said, if it's not a part of such an indemnity policy, then the school giving out the punishment would run a severe risk of lawsuits further down the track (for example, "emotional trauma" etc.). SMC (talk) 01:41, 26 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)

Australia
"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)

Why is there no POV tag?
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)


 * I am minded to remove the POV tag now, if nobody objects. Alarics (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The POV tag is not ready to be removed, as the article still lacks the neutrality needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueAthame (talk • contribs) 16:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In what respect? Please be more specific. Alarics (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself...
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)


 * The latter view is correct - I'll find a source for it later. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of other types of punishment
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)
 * Well uhm... Answering-Islam and Wikipedia are not reliable sources, for starters. If the article needs expansion in the area you suggest (which it may well do), you need better sources, and should probably avoid opinion pieces too. Dendlai (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try to get some better sources. I've put a more specific sentence in now, citing written evidence to a select committee. I think it's important that the article describes the range of punishments used; at the moment it could almost be an article on smacking children. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am meeting this point (I hope) by creating separate pages for domestic, school and judicial corporal punishment, and moving the detail on those (in practice largely separate) issues from here on to the new pages. When I have finished sorting it all out, this article will mostly concern only those aspects that relate to corporal punishment in all contexts. Alarics (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea - this article was quite long. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. It will take a little while as it is a bit complicated, especially as I am also integrating into the appropriate new pages some stuff from the "Spanking" article, much of which was about corporal punishment in general rather than spanking specifically (depending on how you define spanking, which is one of the difficulties). Alarics (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Corporal punishment in czech schools
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)
 * If you look at School corporal punishment, you can see that it comes from http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/czech.html . Alarics (talk) 21:02, 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)
 * Calm yourself, there is nothing to be infuriated about. The article doesn't say corporal punishment actually happens, only that it has not been prohibited by law. And that is true. The 1867 thing was when what is now Czech Rep. was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. It certainly hasn't been outlawed ever since then. Alarics (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also why do you say "without actually citing where it comes from" when there is a footnote right there, citing the source? Alarics (talk) 21:16, 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)
 * It is purely a statement of fact that the Czech Republic has not explicitly outlawed it, so that statement is entirely neutral. I am not responsible for the map. I have no idea why there is only a map of Europe. I didn't make the map and I did not put it in this article. You can make a map of the rest of the world and put it there, if you wish. Alarics (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Muflon 83 you can make your opinion known to your Member of Parliament who should be as concerned as you are about the image your country presents to the world. You could even use the map to show how exceptional the Czech Republic law seems compared with the rest of the European Union that it recently (2004) joined. Please remember to sign your posts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:43, 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)


 * Dear Muflon 83, Cuddlyable3 was not flaming you. He/she was trying to be helpful. As for saying "please remember to sign your posts", that is a standard reminder to anyone who puts a comment on an article's talk page with putting four tildes at the end. It is certainly not an "uncalled for intervention". Your anger is misplaced. Alarics (talk) 05:24, 5 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)


 * Seeing what had been said, it isn't considered a flame by any means, but as a suggestion as to take IF one chooses to get involved politically to bring about a legality that would clarify a situation already done in practice. It is possible to get others involved to have the government to make a bill to formally codify into law in this given area. Hopefully those in power of the Czech Rep. will do it soon, so as to correct this problem as it's shown in this article.
 * By the way, it was also pointed out to sign what is posted by using 4 ~ after it's done, rather than the need of the sinebot having to always be doing it. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:28, 6 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.&mdash;Gabbe (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) the map only has European states
 * 2) the map singles out the Czech Republic as being alone in Europe in not having abolished school corporal punishment
 * 3) the map is incorrect, and that the Czech Republic does not perform school corporal punishment

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
 * Nice to know, but what's needed here is a national government law, with an online source if possible. When found, then it'll be updated accordingly. Thanks. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

"Committee on the Rights of the Child"-passage
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".

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. The Committee was set up to monitor implementation of the Convention.

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. 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.

Although half its members are not lawyers, and only three of the present members appear to have any experience as jurists, 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.&mdash;Gabbe (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing two different things. Clearly the Committee on the Rights of the Child is not a "reliable source" on corporal punishment because it is highly POV. But that is not why we are quoting it here. We are using it as a "reliable source" on the subject of what it itself says, and its opinion has to be mentioned whether we like it or not (because it is a major player in worldwide efforts to remove corporal punishment) but balance it with (in the interests of NPOV) an explanation that its basis for doing so does not go unchallenged and is not to be found in the Convention itself (the Convention itself being, again, a "reliable source" only on the subject of what the Convention says).
 * I think removing such a big slab of text from of the article is not justified. What I propose to do is to restore the first two and the last paragraphs that you have removed, but boil down the stuff about the CRC with a stronger link to the separate article about the CRC itself, and I will add secondary sources that support challenging the CRC interpretation. This is a subject of conflicting opinions and we have to mention all the main ones. Alarics (talk) 09:06, 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.&mdash;Gabbe (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I will have a go at restructuring the thing on that basis. Alarics (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect! I'm looking forward to it! &mdash;Gabbe (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Map/Italy
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)
 * True, BUT "In addition, in Italy in 1996 the Supreme Court in Rome declared all corporal punishment to be unlawful; this is not yet confirmed in legislation." This can be seen in the endcorporalpunishment website, meaning that the Italian government didn't pass into law yet, thus why the map shows as it is. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Corporal punishment in Asia and other areas
Any chance other areas might get added to this article? Patiently waiting (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Asia is mentioned, but for details of individual countries you should turn to the separate articles, Corporal punishment in the home and School corporal punishment and Judicial corporal punishment. Alarics (talk) 20:57, 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)

Meta-analysis
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)
 * There's already a summary in Corporal punishment in the home, along with all the other studies. Gabbe (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Countries/States maps where corporal punishment is permissible
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)
 * The choice of colours is arbitrary and the caption is meant to explain which is which. Gabbe (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

learning disabilities
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)

merge in List of deaths by corporal punishment
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)
 * We have to say we totally agree with this - it also seem like quite a lot of the items that were on the list were more child abuse than corporal punishment, and while they are of course tragic events, it seems a bit tricky to put them on that list, especially when three of them seemed to be cases which had not been tried in a court, and it seems wrong to use the word 'alleged' so much in an encyclopedia entry... Yours, Artie and Wanda (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather get rid of it altogether. It looks to have been put there by somebody with a POV against corporal punishment, trying to give the impression that such consequences might be expected from its use. In fact, of course, it's nonsense: something that results in somebody's death goes way beyond anything that can reasonably be described as corporal punishment. You don't die just from being paddled or spanked. This is twisting the language to make a false point. Alarics (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm up for sending it to AFD based on that rationale --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support that too. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I would like it deleted, I'm betting that a merge-and-prune would be much easier. Just have one paragraph in this article "In extreme cases, corporal punishment has been known to cause death.  Such cases include blah, blah, blah and blah."  The end. BE——Critical __Talk 00:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even that is questionable. Of the 5 cases currently mentioned in List of deaths by corporal punishment, the two 19th-century ones are already mentioned in the History section of this article, so the point that such things could sometimes occur in the distant past has already been made. Taking the other three cases:
 * - The first has a ref. leading to a newspaper report that says "he allegedly beat her so severely that chunks of flesh were ripped from her body" which, if the allegation is true, doesn't sound to me as if it had much to do with "corporal punishment" in any generally understood sense, and another report referenced describes the perpetrator as having earlier pleaded guilty to punching somebody in the face at a bus stop. Surely this is a case of a violently brutal man rather than a case of "corporal punishment".
 * - The second involves a man who "tied her [his daughter] to a bed frame, partially stripped her and repeatedly beat her on the back, chest and legs with a large electrical cable". As far as I know, this has never been a recommended method of administering corporal punishment.
 * - The third case is entirely different as it concerns a prisoner who was flogged in 1921. This was an extreme case of corporal punishment as practised at the time. However, the man was "already weak with malaria" and the perpetrator was acquitted of murder. It remains unclear to what extent the death can be attributed to the flogging or whether he would have died anyway.
 * I think we need to just delete List of deaths by corporal punishment as being highly POV and misleading, while leaving the existing mention in this article's history section of the two 19th-century cases. Alarics (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD'd here --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Convention on the Rights of the Child and corporal punishment
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."

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:
 * States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

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)


 * How the Committee *chooses to interpret* the Convention is quite a different thing from what the Convention itself actually says. The Committee has unilaterally decided that all and any corporal punishment, however careful or mild, constitutes "physical or mental violence, injury or abuse" -- a highly tendentious interpretation, which has been explicitly rejected by such States Parties to the Convention as Australia, Canada and the UK. Critics note that the wording of the Convention cannot originally have been meant to be interpreted thus, and the Committee, an unelected and unaccountable body, can only *recommend* that States Parties abolish corporal punishment, it cannot make them do so. Alarics (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Corporal vs. physical punishment
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". 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". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The page Physical punishment now redirects here. The relevant discussion is found at Articles for deletion/Physical punishment. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please update the map


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: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:506F:FFFF:0:0:524D:A610 (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Central African Republic shouldn't be highlighted on the first map; the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children reports that, except as sentence for crime, corporal punishment of children has not been outlawed in any setting in C.A.R. as of January 2016.


 * However, the Republic of Ireland Peru  Greenland  and Turkmenistan  can all be added to the countries in red. The Global Initiative produced a map  that may serve as a good reference. Wikimedia commons has a blank map  if needed. — Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, the map must be fixed. I removed it for now.2A02:2F01:505F:FFFF:0:0:50C:5329 (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And on the map below you must change Estonia and Ireland to green.2A02:2F01:505F:FFFF:0:0:50C:5329 (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Mongolia has also prohibited all corporal punishment, set to come into force in September 2016. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Campaigns against
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 (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 Neutral point of view. More practically, much of the historical information on the "Campaigns" page would fit well into the section Corporal punishment. Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was I who created the Campaigns against corporal punishment article in 2009, replacing a previous article called Anti-Spanking. The other material from the latter was either moved into, or was already duplicated by, the main Corporal punishment article. What remained in the new article was never intended to rehearse the arguments against CP, which, as you say, belong in the main article. It was simply intended to catalogue the bodies and key individuals who have formed the organised opposition to CP. This was partly in order to stave off attempts to create separate articles for individual such organisations. Had there been any significant concerted campaigns in favour of CP, they could have had their own article too. I still think it is better not to clutter up the main article (already long) with this stuff but keep it separate as one of the subsidiary articles linked from the main one.
 * I agree with you though that the bit headed "History" about Plutarch, Seneca, etc. could be dispensed with, and I am not sure that the definition by the UN committee is necessary, either.
 * Just to set this in context, what I and User:Gabbe were trying to do in 2009 was to transform a muddle of different overlapping articles with various titles into a coherent group as now set out in the "Part of a series on ...." infobox that is included in all the articles. I will alert Gabbe to this discussion in case he wants to contribute. -- Alarics (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any Pending a third opinion, I have posted a request for comment in the categories Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture and Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. New talk section is below. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Merge "Campaigns against corporal punishment" into "Corporal punishment"?
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)


 * The original discussion can be found above. My main concern is possible Content forking whereby having a separate article about opposition to corporal punishment invites segregating views critical of CP into that article. There are also comparatively few sources that focus on the campaigns themselves—most of the material on them comes from sources about corporal punishment generally. It seems to make little sense to separate discussion of anti-CP campaigns into a separate article, unless the intent is to circumvent Neutral point of view. Even if that is not the intent, I think it is a likely effect of such content splitting. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * DeclineLooking at the size of both articles you lack a legitimate gripe. Per WP:SPLIT with the total size of each article a content split is justifiable. I'm not seeing anything in the linked discussion or here that would justify a merge.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This does not at all seem like a POV-fork. 's rationale that this was intended as a split of the main article into "part of a series on..." makes a lot of sense, and it indeed seems like the content has been split in a way consistent with a series. For now I say leave it as status quo and try to make improvements to both articles - if in the course of improvements there doesn't seem to be enough "meat" for both articles, reconsider a merger. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 14:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)