Talk:Grounding (discipline technique)


 * · .edu · .gov

January 2007
Low quality article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.210.30.198 (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Very. Some sources wouldn't go amiss. --Ross UK 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm made major changes -- it sounded very pro-spanking and continually empathised the alleged "ineffectiveness" of grounding. The lack of sources is regrettable, but in my opinion the information is correct and commonplace when the punishment is imposed. --Jatkins (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the Spanking article -- very substantial information on the contrasting topic. I think that this article should be expanded as well, to keep Wikipedia information on child discipline neutral point of view. --Jatkins (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a basis for a good article.
People on here have said that it is a bad article. If you feel it is bad why don't you try to make it a good strong source instead of calling it bad or low quality.

To who ever made it i think that it is good but dose need some sources but i don't know how to do them yet. Maybe my adoper can teach me ;-). Alec1990 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could merge it into a big article about types of child discipline instead. Or would that not provide enough info? 76.235.182.216 (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

gdf
needs workIAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
"If and when grounding is imposed, it can often be for a period less than or greater than one week."

Less than or greater than one week? That doesn't mean anything. Should proabbly change it. 65.78.144.140 (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Anybody know what they called this before the invention of the airplane. It obviously takes its name from the act of prohibiting a pilot or aircraft from flying. (grounded=kept on the ground)98.157.211.148 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)JC360


 * "Being kept in", I think. Alarics (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Does adding this make sense?
I added a sentence that mentions that some teenagers may be inclined to become more unruly if they are grounded because they see it as "unfair" or a "childish" form of punishment imposed on them, and that this can lead to rebellious behavior. Is this addition too biased? Is this addition not appropriate for this article in some other way? 76.235.182.216 (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Natural authority or not
When a parent for whatever reason does not have a natural authority over the child then physical force, like locks would be needed. Can this be added? Andries (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Add new section of causes of grounding
It needs to have a section with why parents ground you for any type of improper conduct, otherwise cheers. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparent copyright violation
This edit is an obvious copy-paste from an unnamed sourced. I have reverted to the prior version, per WP:DCV. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Adults getting grounded
For a short time, the article's introduction talked about people who have reached the age of majority (adults) being grounded. My argument is that legal adults are emancipated from parents and other adults and do not have to listen to a word they say. Some parents have a set of rules for newly-adult children to follow if they still live at home, however, if adults were grounded, that would mean they were grounded by other adults, and I thought it was generally agreed that teenagers become adults' "equals" and "peers" when they reach the age of majority. I can just imagine a hypothetical scenario between a married couple where one spouse prohibits the other from going out. Odd, isn't it?

With somebody who's legally a child, grounding is obviously for disciplinary purposes, but if an adult told another, legal adult, that they were disallowed from going out, I believe that at least in the United States that would constitute false imprisonment. Wikipedia's article on false imprisonment says that it is defined as "a person intentionally restrict[ing] another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification[,] or consent." What some people consider justified, and what some don't, varies widely, so that may be too difficult a statement to be interpreted for the purposes of improving the article, and should probably just be removed from the latter article altogether; I think for the purpose of Wikipedia the definition of "justification" is a "gray area".

The only exception to this that I can think of would be if a legal adult lived at home and had the mental age of a small child (i.e. intellectually disabled.) There may be others.

Though it might seem like I'm getting defensive or "rambling", I just find the notion of adults "grounding" other, competent people who have reached the age of majority absurd. I'm going to remove it and I wanted to give notice so it was not re-added like it was last year when I tried to make the same edit. If somebody feels it should be re-added, please present your argument here. The brave celery (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)