Talk:Punishment/Archive 1

Additional reason
An additional reason for punishment would be for the criminal to pay back the damage done to the victim or to society, in the form of fines or forced labor. I'm uncertain about terminology, however. Anyone...? &mdash;Herbee 10:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Probably "Restoration" - I'll add it. Evercat 17:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are there any existing pages discussing justifications for punishment? (Utilitarian v. Retributive, etc.) Typos 02:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reward and Punishment
From Gilbert Ryle's "Concept of Mind"; ISBN: 0226732967; p, 20

Sin: No Praise—No Blame.:


 * A second major crux points the same moral. Since, according to the doctrine, minds belong to the same category as bodies and since bodies are rigidly governed by mechanical laws, it seemed to many theorists to follow that minds must be similarly governed by rigid non-mechanical laws. The physical world is a deterministic system, so the mental world must be a deterministic system. Bodies cannot help the modifications that they undergo, so minds cannot help pursuing the careers fixed for them. Responsibility, choice, merit and demerit are therefore inapplicable concepts—unless the compromise solution is adopted of saying that the laws governing mental processes, unlike those governing physical processes, have the congenial attribute of being only rather rigid. The problem of the Freedom of the Will was the problem how to reconcile the hypothesis that minds are to be described in terms drawn from the categories of mechanics with the knowledge that higher-grade human conduct is not of a piece with the behaviour of machines.

Yesselman 23:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected the psychological definition for punishmentwhicky1978 20:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Except your removed the part about behavior not changing. If it does not change then it isn't a punishment. For punishment to be classified as punishment then the behavior must decrease, otherwise it is just an aversive stimulus. Bignole 21:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Abuse Template
Why is there an abuse template here? Punishment is not abuse. Typos 08:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, am removing it. TheGrappler 22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about retribution vs. deterrence
Isn't the definition requirement of behaviour modification at odds with the Retribution section which says that the suffering from punishment can be construed as a good in itself? Retribution, in which I include vengeance, is intended to balance the evil without regard to whether it will change behaviour. Likewise, incapacitation as described is used when it is apparent that any punishment will be incapable of producing the desired behaviour modification. I looked you up here because of the relationship to free will. There it is argued whether it is proper to hold someone responsible for his misdeeds if the person is compelled by his nature rather than in possession of the free will to choose his actions. The answer depends in part on whether the goal of punishment is deterrence or vengeance. - JethroElfman 01:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The goal of punishment is never vengeance, if that is the case then you are not trying to punish the person, you are trying to get retribution for yourself or someone else. It doesn't matter what field of study you use, the correct definition of punishment means the behavior has to change. So, since vengeance is not built on decreasing the behavior, but on applying an equal concequence for personal satisfaction, it cannot be be considered punishment anyway. Punishment is all about deterrence. The retribution section shouldn't even be included unless it is noted that the "retribution" caused the behavior to decrease. This does not include castrating males that have raped, because you didn't decrease the behavior you have made it go extinct, and that isn't punishment. The retribution sections is making it out to see like punishment is a form of retribution, when it isn't. The goal of retribution is not to deter the persons behavior it is to get even, that isn't punishment, that is just a consequence, and shouldn't be apart of this page. Bignole 01:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To JethroElfman - there's no reason to believe that all the reasons for punishment must apply in any given case; indeed, this may be impossible if some of the reasons conflict with each other. That's why the section is called "possible reasons for punishment".

To Bignole - Retributive theories of punishment have a long history. What you propose if basically a POV deletion.... in fact the Stanford Encyclopedia entry begins with the line "Punishment in its very conception is now acknowledged to be an inherently retributive practice". So you can't impose your own POV here. Evercat 01:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't POV, go check the fields of study....Psychology, Psychiatry, Child care...they all say the same thing that if a behavior is not decreased then it isn't punishment. The true definition of punishment lies in the decrease of the behavior. I should know because I've had plenty of college classes on the subject. Oh, that site is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...PHILOSOPHY. I've had plenty of classes in that area as well and trust me they don't run with the standard thinking. Anyway, if you read it isn't describing what punishment is medically, scientifically or even maternally defined as, it is talking about what punishment has become to be associated with and that is retribution. Well, when you look at today's prison system then you can see where they get his idea, because the majority of offenders in prison are repeat offenders so obviously they aren't really being punished for their crimes if they seem to keep commiting them. Bignole 01:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I think it's you who's at odds with common sense. Certainly if you ask a lot of people why criminals should be punished many would simply say "because they deserve it". This IS one reason given by the man in the street, as well as politicians, religious leaders, philosophers, etc.

I think it's bizarre that you could say that if there's no change in behaviour (no rehabilitation) then it doesn't count as punishment. This certainly doesn't fit with the common English-language use of the word "punishment". A sentence such as "we punished him but he didn't change" makes perfect sense. Evercat 01:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because people are ignorant of what it really means to be "punishment" doesn't mean that Wikipedia should perpetuate the cycle of ignorance by elaborating on a subject that is not correct. I find it hard to believe that the "religous leader" condones punishment anyway...isn't the Catholic policy to just repent and you shall be forgiven? If we go by your definition that means that you are saying that the church wants us to kill all murderers, because hey "they deserve it". Right.Bignole 01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defining punishment in that section, I'm offering a list of possible justifications for it. I'm not saying I agree with this particular justifcation (I don't, actually).

If you want a definition of punishment, it's something like "an authorized imposition of deprivations -- of freedom or privacy or other goods to which the person otherwise has a right, or the imposition of special burdens -- because the person has been found guilty of some criminal violation, typically (though not invariably) involving harm to the innocent." (this again is from the Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy article).

It's clear to me at least that the ordinary meaning of the word "punishment" implies nothing about what sort of effects it has on behaviour. When I look up "punish" in my Chambers 20th Century Dictionary here, I see it says "to cause (one) to suffer for an offence". Nothing about behaviour modification in my dictionary. Evercat 01:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's my point, the true definition has been degraded to become something that it isn't. Doctors, psychologist, family therapists, social workers, child development professionals all say that if you administer a "punishment" and the subject never decreases behavior and continues then what you did obviously wasn't a punishment to that subject. Just beause you think it is punishing doesn't mean it actually is. Bignole 01:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'm begining to understand you, but it sounds a bit behaviourist... :-) What I think you're saying is that, by definition, "punishment" == "stimulus that alters behaviour" or something similar... hmm... again I can only say that this isn't the definition commonly used by most people... Evercat 01:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is true, but people tend to use the wrong definition for a lot of things. I do believe most people don't even know the actual definition of Schizophrenia and think that it is split personality. Society as a whole is very ignorant when it comes to the actual definition of things, that doesn't mean we should support it even though people think that it's not what it really is. Bignole 06:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Bignole, and agree with everyone else, that punishment does not necessarily have the goal of reform, but rather reform is one possible goal. If punishment only meant reform, then the phrase "capital punishment" becomes absurd...meaning to reform an individual by killing them. StuRat 07:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to create a separate article, perhaps called punishment (pyschology) to differentiate your usage of the term from the more common usage. Trying to get everyone to stop using the term to include retribution is not an option, as this would bring about the need to coin a new phrase for punishment and retribution viewed collectively. StuRat 07:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Capital punishment is the death penalty, how can you punish someone by killing them? Obviously it isn't punishment to them, because they aren't going to be able to do anything other than die afterward. What you people are doing is thinking that if you "consider" it a punishment then it must be a punishment. You are neglecting the POV of the person being "punished". If you kill them, or they never change, how can you consider it punishment? Punishment is designed to stop people from doing something they aren't supposed to. We put criminals in prison to stop them from breaking the law; we send our children to time out to stop them from acting up. Well, if the prisoner is released and breaks the law again, and again, and again; or, the child continues to act up even though you keep "punishing" them, they obviously do not consider whatever it is that you are doing a punishment. So, if they don't consider it punishment how can you? Bignole 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's the 'ultimate' punishment (whether justified is another matter!) in the sense that it's the only one absolutely guaranteed to stop the criminal from ever offending again, so society's primary goal is reached by crushing the individual which failed to conform on an essential point; furthermore proponents argue (a highly disputed point) that the alledged deterrent effect will stop other potential offenders preventively, which should the serve society's goal indirectly even better. Criminal-oriented purposes of punishment, such as educational, are of course thus pushed aside, but to be a punishment it does not have to conform with all. Your apparently exclusively psycho(logical) approach is getting in the way again, while it is a fairly recent and never dominant factor in the mind of decisionmakers, punishees and public at large. Fastifex 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "ultimate punshiment", Hitler. You wanna start a master race, too? If you physically stop the behavior by killing the person that doesn't mean that it was a true punishment. You're problem is that you were brought up in the ignorance that punishment is anything that is given to you to get you to stop what you are doing, whether you stop or not. That isn't correct. Oh, and the fact that our prisons are overcrowded proves that we obviously are not detering anyone from future crimes. Nice try, but my "psycho logic" isn't fairly recent. By YOU ending the behavior yourself it doesn't mean that it was a punishment, because the prison didn't do it you did when you ended his life. There wasn't a decrease in behavior, there was an extinction of beavior. If I'm allow my "pshycho logic" to get in the way, then you are allowing your society produced ignorance get in the way. Cause I notice that you had no retort for the fact that society, for the most part, is ignorant of the true definitions are many things, but, of course punishment couldn't be one of those. Because we have parents beating their kids every day, and that obviously stops their kids from doing what they shouldn't. So, if the point of punishment is not the decrease behavior then what is it? I know that when I was a kid, and I was punished, I always thought it was because I didn't something my mother didn't want me to do and that I shouldn't do it again. Hhmm..that sounds kind of psychological, and yet that was when I was a kid. I guess I was part of the society that didn't go with your "societal common definition". Bignole 14:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In language, a word means what the majority thinks it means, period. Many words have multiple meanings, some original, some derived by extensions.  It's quite clear to the majority of us here that punishment includes retribution for most people, hence that IS what it means.  An academic telling us all it means something else will not change it's meaning. StuRat 23:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So, let's get this logic down. Since the majority of people think that schzephrenia is split personality, then that obviously means that it is. Oh, so if the majority of people say that the Earth is flat then it must, or that the Earth is the center of the universe....but we know that they were wrong too. Wow, it seems the majority of people believed a lot of things that were wrong, why would it be any different. If an academic telling you it all means something else will not change it's meaning, then why do we believe the Sun is the center of the universe and that the Earth is round? Retribution is a motive for punishment, it is not punishment. When you are punishing someone to make yourself feel better that isn't punishment. They learn nothing from the experience so it defeats the purpose. Oh, and the "majority" that you speak of is only two people, because only two people have expressed an opinion on here over this. Bignole 23:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I count two here plus everyone who edited the article to include modes of punishment which aren't aimed at altering behaviour. On the other side, there is only you.  That makes the majority clearly against you.  And don't try confusing what I said by implying that I said "whatever the majority thinks is true".  It does not, in general.  This only applies to language.  As for schizophrenia (please learn how to spell it, BTW) meaning split personality, if the majority uses it that way, then that is a valid meaning, distinct from the formal psychological meaning. StuRat 23:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Aww, did I touch a nerve? The majority of people that edit this article didn't unanimously agree on all this information, and if it takes one lone person to point out the inconsistency in the meaning then so be it. You haven't been able to counter anything. Your problem is that you are picking and choosing your definitions. Oh, and as I do believe my eyes don't fool me, but retribution is listed on "possible reasons for punishment", meaning that obviously someone agrees with me, because I didn't change it to that. As for schizophrenia (I have only spelled in incorrectly once, and I have used it twice, BTW) that is a medical diagnosis and society cannot say that there is another meaning for it, when doctors say that it isn't. Psychologist do not diagnose someone with Schizophrenia, medical doctors do. It just proves the ignorance of society when they think that it is split personality disorder, when it isn't. It also seems that every time I provide you with an argument against your claim (check the above posts) you always seem to return to "the majority says.." Is that your only argument? Bignole 00:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument included dictionary definitions plus the Stanford school of philosophy. I will add one that I found on Dictionary.com which quotes Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary, "It is not primarily intended for the reformation of criminals". They explicitly state that the purpose of punishment is to balance the crime which was committed.  Perhaps it is an issue of context.  Psychology and child care are concerned with the effects on the punishee.  Philosophy allows greater discussion of the motives of the punisher.  That's how I got here -- because it occurred to me that punishment based on vengeance is immoral (although Easton's makes it look like such a notion is heresy). - JethroElfman 18:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that society makes a point to express their own beliefs in something that is already defined. Schizophrenia, for example, has always been defined the same, but society takes the definition and draws their own conclusions. They see hallucination, paranoia and delusions as what someone with split personality experiences, which that is not the case. The same goes for punishment. It wasn't intended to just seek retribution, but because people see it has retribution for a crime (if you are speaking of criminals) committed against their family then they assume that punishment isn't about decreasing behavior but really about making sure someone gets what is coming to them. Society likes to destort things to best fit their philosophies, and eye for an eye seems to be more prevalent than rehabilitation. Even most criminologist don't consider prison punishment because most criminals never get rehabilitated. Bignole 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The articles under penology discuss the issues further, which is what I came looking for in the first place. They don't seem to have a problem with the semantics of punishment.  See for example this quote from Retributive justice, "the need for a criminal to be punished is a requirement that comes from basic fairness and justice and not necessarily as a result of deterrence." - JethroElfman 02:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say prison wasn't punishment, because it is punishment for some, but, when the majority of prisoners are repeat offenders how much punishment is it really to them? Also, you have to remember that you are reading an article that was edited by people that are probably not experts in the subject matter, as is the case with just about every article in wikipedia. I'm not removing the validity of the article, just that you have to realize that people's POV (not matter how much you attempt to remove them) and their misconceptions tend to bleed into what they write. If someone doesn't come along and correct it then it goes without saying that more people are going to believe what they read. Anyway, the point of punishment has always been to deter behavior. Even when you execute you are attempting to deter future behavior of others. My point is that retribution is not punishment. It can be a motive for punishment, but it itself isn't punishment. Time out is a punishment, removal of privileges is a punishment, retribution is a expression of a thought process and cannot be punishment. Retribution is not an act, it's describing a motive. I punch someone for punching me. I was seeking retribution, but what I attempted to do was punish the other person for hitting me. If they hit me again I obviously didn't punish them because they didn't feel like it was a problem. Bignole 03:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to enter this debate, but on the question of the relationship between punishment, retribution and deterrence there is in the United Kingdom some statutory authority. In Scotland, when prisoners are sentenced to life imprisonment the court sets the "punishment part", a minimum period that must be spent in custody "to satisfy the requirements for retribution and deterrence".--George Burgess 10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you explain that last bit a little more clearly?Bignole 11:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Locking Up Children
Is locking up your children in a room or whatever considered abuse or is it accepted as valid non-violent punishment? Zachorious 01:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that would probably fall under Time Out, even if they are locking the door. Time Out doesn't have to be in a corner. Bignole 02:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant Info?
The rambling description of the boer punishment in this article seems totally out of place. Perhaps it should be in its own article.

So if punishment is more appropriately dubbed vengeance, is it child abuse? 206.131.49.107 14:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)a guy

Sounds relevant to me, IMHO.

Latest edit
Being challenged to a duel is not a punishment - it's an attempt to extract "satisfaction" or "honour". When an executioner punishes a criminal, there's not much chance of him being killed himself. AngryStan 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Etymology
It struck me that Punire might come from Punic, in relation to what the romans did to the carthaginains at the end of the 3rd punic war. Does anybody have anything to say about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.118.42 (talk • contribs)
 * If you've got a source, add the info to the page. WLU 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Negative Punishment With A Rare Or One-Time Thing
Could negative punishment also mean taking away a yearly tradition or something that only happens once? I thought of this as an example: "Let's say a friend or member of your family invited you to a party, but your parents won't let you go because you made a false alarm 911 call." 66.191.115.61 (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)66.191.115.61
 * Yes. WLU (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitions
Would like to point out that punishment is not necessarily in response to a misdeed. OED definitions

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/punish?view=uk

• verb 1 impose a penalty on (someone) for an offence. 2 impose a penalty on someone for (an offence). 3 treat harshly or unfairly.

82.5.213.54 (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Added "usually" to reflect this. 82.5.213.54 (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Lede issues
"Garbage" is not really an effective description, and it is actually vague. Especially, for a well suited lead for this article. Apparently the previous lead has the support of three other editors. The pervious lead read as follows:

Punishment is the practice of imposing something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal or property, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles.

One other editor, Stevertigo, persists in reverting the supported lead for a lone interpretation of what an overview for this article should say. This is over-riding the implicit support of other editors, for the view of one editor. This appears to indicate WP:OWN (ownership). Especially when flippantly discounting the above lead as "garbage", and just as flippantly reverting the more accurate lead. The current lead has a narrow scope compared to the broad scope encompassed by the above reverted lead. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I created a new section just below the introduction and placed his contribution to this article in that section. I think it is well written, and certainly worthy of inclusion at this time. However, this content belongs in a more narrowly defined section, rather than attempting to be a presentation for the article as a whole. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo's revision begins with "In society, punishment is the concept of imposing negative consequences upon persons (cf. legal person) who commit destructive actions (ie. crimes)." and then elaborates further on about the criminal justice system. I agree that this revision does not summarize this article per wp:lead. There is more to this article than simply the criminal justice concepts and children punished for disobedience are not necessarily committing "destructive actions" nor would they be characterized as "committing" anything. Stevertigo's revision is idealistic (as if there are no other actions punished other than destructive ones and by anyone other than society) and is better suited for a section on criminal justice. Furthermore, a more comprehensive legal section or sections would also include civil reparations. --Modocc (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The recent addition of "Divine punishment" and its description in the lede seems to be inappropriately narrow. Also from which reliable source is this derived? The lede really needs to be changed." Steve Quinn (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * agree re "destructive". Also, a hallmark of punishment is that it be administered by some entity deemed to have the authority to do so. Otherwise it is not distinguishable from things like retribution and the "punishment" boxers administer to each other (a sense that should also be properly noted in the article).--JimWae (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been patiently waiting for Stevertigo to respond to our feedback, and the fact that he changed the previous lede, which has the support of consensus. I think he has been given enough time. So with the support of the consensus already established I am changing the lede back to the more appropriate lede. It is more appropriate because it is much broader in scope, and has consensus behind it - it is as follows:


 * Punishment is the practice of imposing something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal or property, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles.


 * The above also has the added benefit of being simpler than Stevertigo's amalgamation. The amalgamation which replaced this lede can be placed in other areas with a narrower scope. I agree there should be a section on criminal justice and perhaps more comprehensive legal section. Furthermore WP:LEAD "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article". Stevertigo's lede (or lead) does not do this. The above lede appears to provide a sufficient overview for this article, and with only a few lines. Also keep in mind Stevertigo's rationale for replacing this lede (with his own creation), is that it is "garbage". I have looked through Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I could not find WP:GARBAGE. I wonder if he could elaborate on this? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I made the changes to this article this week - developing the lede section to a substantial degree - before Modocc, JimWae, and Steve Quinn took any interest in this article or topic. Modocc followed me here after engaging me in debates on theology, while JimWae and Steve Quinn followed me here from articles related to the subject of time.

In spite of claims by Steve Quinn, the previous lede had no consensus or support. The lede which preceded mine was:
 * "Punishment is the practice of imposing something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal or property, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles."

..language which was not only vague, but poorly written: The "imposition" of "something negative" on "a person or animal or property" part, alone disqualifies it from being acceptable as is, and the list of crimes "disobedience, defiance" and things "morally wrong" makes it at best draft writing in need of a rewrite. It seems strange then that these other editors have added sources after its writing in the pretense of supporting such inane and unusable text. That SQ would add to this the claim the above inaneness to be the "consensus" - in spite of having never worked on this article before I came along - means of course that he's not only here to harass, but to be completely disingenuous. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Modocc wrote: "Stevertigo's revision is idealistic (as if there are no other actions punished other than destructive ones and by anyone other than society) and is better suited for a section on criminal justice." - I understand that "punishment" might have colloquial and idiomatic usage such that exceeds the boundaries of its general, normative definition. In two sentences, what language would you suggest could give treatment to the colloquial usages of "punishment?" Keep in mind that I've already mentioned abuse of justice and collective punishment. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Simply put, there is no Wikipedia guideline entitled "Garbage" which is related to an editor's point of view that certain content deserves that title. Hence, it is not an acceptable rationale for removing material from an article. Stevertigo himself explicitly acknowledged a consensus that he was editing against with this edit: . This revision is dated at 05:28, on 4 August 2010. A verbatim quote is "restore my lede, replacing previous which was garbage, but nevertheless got the support of 3 people (Wae, Modocc, & Quinn)" One again I state there is no WP:GARBAGE. Therefore along with WP:OWN....


 * This is becoming a case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT or refusing to get the point. In other words, "in some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not." This also resembles WP:ICANTHEARYOU.


 * If you wish to collaborate on this article, then my suggestion is to start with the lede supported by consensus, instead of attempting to impose your single view on everyone else. It is a situation where you are attempting to have us edit according to your standards, and I don't see that as appropriate. So, there is already ample feedback regarding the material you have added, which was formerly in the lede. I suggest starting with that.Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How is one to find "consensus" among editors who have never before edited this article or its talk page? How am I supposed to find "consensus" with editors who are just following me from unrelated editorial debates? Note that your first edit to this article was nothing but a total revert of the edits I made. Was that you trying to "find consensus?" Before this thread, the most recent comments on this talk page date to June 2008. Were you at any point trying to find consensus in dealing with my edits? It appears that you had no interest in this topic before I came along to edit the article.
 * My version is the current version of the article, and it will stay that way. If you have specific criticisms of the lede I've written, please make them. Per Modocc's comments, I have removed certain elements from the second paragraph.

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the lead and as it currently stands it is, IMHO, not correct. Punishment is not given only to humans and it is not limited to the legal domain. Nor is it only doled out in response to "destructive acts"., not even in the legal realm. Refusing to testify in court, or perjury, for instance, are only destructive in some abstract sense but are still considered punishable offenses. As for Stevertigo's comment just above here, Steve, I think you should read WP:OWN. Just my 5 cents. --Crusio (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Crusio, thanks for the feedback. I am reviewing WP:OWN, and it is probably not for me to say what another editors real intentions are. Also, the consensus lede is broad in scope, and a very good starting point. At one point, after placing the consensus lede back in the article, there was a section on legal the aspects of punishement. The point being punishment is not limited to the legal domain, and an article section describing the legal aspects, and criminal justice is an appropriate and welcome addition to this article. This was an attempt to be helpful. However, a certian editor insists on a narrower lead consisting of criminal justice, and a paragraph of the Christian view of religous transgressions and punishment. One more thing, I suppose I wouldn't characterize any group of situations regarding edits of this article as really disruptive. I don't see it as that. More like an inconvenience. However, I do frequently observe the occurance of a "refusual to get the point" (as in not-hearing-that). Steve Quinn (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo, it is best to begin with the consensus lead and go from there. What is the problem with the outline I just provided above with Crusio? Just, simply place the material you have written in a ciminal justice, or legal section. Adapt the external links as references. At the bottom of this article are three external links, which can be used as references and inline citations. Place the religous material in the religous section. Also, Jim Wade had reverted your lede before I did, see the edit history. It just happens that the consensus lede spans the spectrum of punishment. It just happens that other editors agree this is the appropriate lede. I don't think any specific reason for editing this article is relevant. The point is to produce an article (and a lede) that is represenative of the topic. It has nothing to do with the personality of a given editor. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo, here is a review of what has already been offered as crtique, regarding the non-consensus lead, which you support:
 * First, from Modocc ---"I agree that this (Stevertigo's) revision does not summarize this article per wp:lead. There is more to this article than simply the criminal justice concepts and children punished for disobedience are not necessarily committing "destructive actions" nor would they be characterized as "committing" anything. Stevertigo's revision is idealistic (as if there are no other actions punished other than destructive ones and by anyone other than society) and is better suited for a section on criminal justice. Furthermore, a more comprehensive legal section or sections would also include civil reparations.
 * Second, from Steve Quinn "The recent addition of "Divine punishment" and its description in the lede seems to be inappropriately narrow. Also from which reliable source is this derived? The lede really needs to be changed."
 * Third, from JimWae: "agree re "destructive". Also, a hallmark of punishment is that it be administered by some entity deemed to have the authority to do so. Otherwise it is not distinguishable from things like retribution and the "punishment" boxers administer to each other (a sense that should also be properly noted in the article."
 * Fourth, the most recent critique, "Punishment is not given only to humans and it is not limited to the legal domain. Nor is it only doled out in response to "destructive acts"., not even in the legal realm. Refusing to testify in court, or perjury, for instance, are only destructive in some abstract sense but are still considered punishable offenses."
 * And also included in this thread are critiques which reiterate the above points of this review. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I will excuse your unnatural interest in this subject and accept on face value that your criticisms are legitimate. Your ideal lede is too short. Starting with my lede version, what changes would you propose? As it stands the current version seems like its talking about beating a household pet with a newspaper rather than talk about the incarcerated, fined, or other punishments suited to higher organisms. "Disobedience" is not as essential to a definition of punishment as is actual criminality. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Per your issues, I have made some changes to generalize the lede. First among these changes is the point made by you and Crusio that punishments are imposed by an authority. This generalizes the concept such that it can apply to any subject - ie. person, corporation, or pet. In a certain way, the word "corrections" has replaced "punishments" in the formal lexicon, and I added "corrections" as well.
 * There is a certain semantic issue/ambiguity here, centering on the variance in the term "punishment." This ambiguity is revealed a bit in our normative reluctance to use the word "punishment" to refer to incarcerated individuals, preferring instead to say that what society imposes upon them are simply "corrections." Added to this, we add the issue presented in the first source (former first source Groliers is now hidden), which claims that corrections imposed by society aren't just punishments, but are based less in correction than they are in some societal concept of retribution. Is punishment by definition a retributive concept? The issue of animal "punishments" is an interesting anomaly. Certainly there is the case that animals who must live within human context receive corrections - some of the corrections being actual "punishments." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternate lede proposal
Below is your alternate lead proposal.

I am changing the lead back to the consensus lead for two reasons. First, it is the established consensus lead (at least 4 to 1) Second the lead you have is a little disjointed, covers some of the ground, strays from the focus the consensus lead has, and once again includes the limited Christian version of religous punishment.

Moreover, it does not matter the length of the lead as long as it is an overview of what is in the article. The consensus lead does this and therefore complies with WP:LEAD, and it does not matter that it is only two lines. Also, other editors are not here to serve the view on only one sinlge editor. Hence, I placed your alternate lead here so we can discuss it. As it stands it is not as accurate as the consensus lead. It would be better to divide up the content and place it in othe sections or create new sections. Finally, I hope we can all address your concerns recently elucidated above. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a comments section below ->

Punishment is the concept of an authority imposing corrections —often in the form of negative consequences or penalties —upon subjects (cf. legal persons) who commit actions which the authority deems destructive. Within human society, punishments are imposed either to educate individuals in the understanding of consequence in general, or to isolate and segregate individuals (incarceration, execution) who appear to be incapable of living within the boundaries of such consequence (ie. society). Central to the idea of punishment are the concepts of reciprocity and retribution, as well as proportionality —such that punishments are made with fairness in mind.

In human context, such destructive actions are typically called offenses, and range from minor infractions up to crimes and capital crimes. Such consequences may range from citations and fines, up to incarceration and, for capital crimes, the death penalty.

Collective punishment is an abuse of justice wherein large groups of people are "punished" for the offenses of individuals, or for actions or qualities which are subjectively deemed an "offense."

In the context of religion, divine punishment refers to the penalties given by God to human beings for the committing of sin &mdash;of which mortal sin is the most costly. Hell is the place in the afterlife where individuals are punished, in accord with divine law and divine judgment.

In contexts where animal behavior is under human scrutiny, the idea of "punishment" may be applied to animals. Pets are notably subject to corrective punishments by their human owners.

Comments

 * For the first comment, once again criminal justice is emphasized in the first four sections of the introduction. Next is a blurb about Catholic view of religious justice (not Christian, and not other religions), and is stringently limited in scope. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So in other words, my intention would be to broaden the scope. For some reason the above lead keeps getting stuck on only Criminal justice, and now, a recent addition of the Catholic view and not an all-inclusive religous view. If the article begins with: Punishment is the practice (not concept) of an authority imposing - imposing what? The only thing broad enough to impose is "something negative". Because, "something negative" applies to  a broad range of punishments (or sanctions) that might be utillized across the variety of societies, institutions, governments, organizations, and smaller undefined groups. Also the imposition of this by some authority would not be enjoyable. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At the moment I can't see working on this as a lede any longer. As the lede it would merely promote a point of view. And it is the same lede, without any substantial change for the last week. I am sorry to say that already in the section below, this lede has been surpassed. I will continue to work on that proposal, and not this one. Anyway this one was not derived from sources, but was constructed as concepts derived from a point of view. I was the one who placed references when it was in a sub-section of the article - intending to smooth out the text (and be helpful). Appartently that was a mistake. Except for an occasional smattering of words, the above is not really supported by the references. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SQ wrote: "Next is a blurb about Catholic view of religious justice (not Christian, and not other religions), and is stringently limited in scope" - 1) it is not a "blurb," it is a note indicating a concept of punishment namely the divine kind. It is not particularly Catholic, nor do you make it clear what differences you claim to exist between the written text and what Christian general Abrahamic religious state. It seems as if you are misappropriating the word "Christian" to mean "not Catholic." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, I am sure you know all this, so why are you acting like you don't know this (the following)?
 * Mortal sin applies to the Catholic faith. Other Christian religions do not have mortal sin. Also this needs to be generalized beyond Catholic, and Christian. For example, Budism doesn't have hell, and is not based on sin; it has karma and reincarnation, and dharma. There are two or three main forms of Buddism, and even these can be subdivided. Then there is Hindu, Shinto, Jainism, Baha'i Faith, Confucianism, and the list goes on. It appears that even the term "divine punishment" is too limiting. Also, added to this is how many different varieties of Christianity are there? Some of the big ones are Assemblies of God, Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, United Church members, Jehovah's Witness, and Mormons. Then there are many smaller Christian groups which are not affiliated with the larger groups. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SQ wrote: "Mortal sin applies to the Catholic faith. Other Christian religions do not have mortal sin." - This is not actually true. Consider the Evangelicals, for whom anyone not some flavor of conservative Christian is committing a sin just by living, and believe that all others are either put into eternal Hell (mean) or simply annihilated (nice). Hence (according to them) just not being "Christian" (your term) is a kind of mortal sin in its own right. In any case, most religious people have a concept of divine punishment. This is the essential concept that belongs in the lede. You can spin around it all you like, and you will still have to deal with the basic fact that divine punishment is inextricably linked to the concept of punishment itself. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First, there is no "kind of mortal sin". Mortal sin is a Catholic definition, and part of its doctrine, along with venial sin. I have not come across an evagenlical protestant religion that employs the term "mortal sin". Do you have a reference to back up your assertion? I am interested. Committing a sin just by living is "Original sin", not mortal sin. If you have some references, or even one or two links from reliable sources I will be glad to be corrected.
 * I agree that some faiths practice exclusivity with the rationale that others are going to hell if they are not believers, but the term mortal sin, or in fact venial sin, is not part of this type of preaching. Again if you have any reliable source references, which contradicts this I am happy to be corrected. Also it appears that "divine punishment" according to the original  above description is (I hate to say it) not WP:NPOV.
 * The concept and description of "divine punishment" spans different cultures, and religions. Divine punishment goes all the way back to Greek literature in the 5th century BC. Any religion with a diety or a pantheon of dieties will probably have some sort of Divine punishment. Hence, this concept will require some reliable source references, again. And, so, it appears that the concept of "divine punishment is not merely limited to the Catholic point of view. Nor is limited to the Christian point of view, but has a history that goes back to the Greeks and Romans, at least. And this was way before the birth of Christ. Also, "divine punishment" shows up as a running theme in literature up to relatively recently - see William Butler Yeats, who wrote a poem entitled Leda and the Swan. Also two of the most famous in literature is "Oedipus Rex", and Dante's "Divine Comedy". So if you have reliable-source-references that show "divine punishment" is only a Christian construct, I would be very interested. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are overspecifying the term "mortal sin" both in its actual meaning, and it its actual ownership (cf. WP:BSM). Note that the term "mortal sin" has two very general words in it, "mortal" meaning "deadly" and "sin" meaning 'things God doesn't like.' Put them together and you have a general term for a general concept that is generally found in all but those religions who are not deist and whom consider God, despite all scripture to the contrary, entirely non-judgmental.
 * I love how you start off arguing against the inclusion of "divine punishment" by stating the ideas' broad relevance and applicability. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately parsing the term "mortal sin" leads us down the path to WP:OR without reliable sources, and therefore cannot be used in an article. Instead of trying to fit 'mortal sin' as a synomym for 'divine punishment' just stick with 'divine punishment'. Besides mortal sin is not a punishment. It is an act (in Catholism) that is considered grevious. The punishment occurs after commiting the act or the sin. So why bother with getting stuck on the term 'mortal sin'? I am not arguing against the inclusion of 'divine punishment'. I am just pointing out what is involved when bringing it into the discussion. The Wikipedia article on divine punishment could be signifigantly expanded just from putting together the information discussed here. You see, 'divine punishment' is within the broader concept of 'punishment'. So, yes, it deserves a section here, but the main treatment of the subject should take place in a 'divine punishment' article, since it already has a space (it is currently a redirect). The redirect entitled 'divine punishment' that goes to 'Divine judgement' is obviously inaccurate. Not only can 'divine punishment' have its own article but Divine judgemtnt is probably only a portion of divine punishment. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

SQ wrote: "Unfortunately parsing the term "mortal sin" leads us down the path to WP:OR without reliable sources, and therefore cannot be used in an article." - Actually you are absolutely correct not. "Parsing terms" is not OR nor does it violate NOR. Let's put it this way: Not "parsing terms" properly might lead one to say things like 1) "..[a] Catholic view of religious justice ([i.e.] not Christian)" - asserting that Catholicism somehow isn't actually a part of Christianity (in fact its the largest part) and 2) "mortal sin is a [strictly] Catholic definition, and part of its doctrine" - even though the mortal sin article makes it quite clear that the concept is general to other Christian groups.

In any case, defining the term "mortal sin" solely according to its Catholic definitions is a case of BSM, and adhering to this definition is simply to argue that the term has only a specific meaning and not a general one. Most other Christian and non-Christian religions have beliefs which argue that certain kinds of sin (genocide for example) are heinous and therefore, in the context of divine justice, face mortal penalty. Ie. 'mortal sin.' So, "parsing terms" is quite natural, and good editors must do it simply because our readership will do it anyway. Terms which are not "parsed" according to their sensible meanings will not get parsed even in accord with their accurate meanings, such as in your case with the two large errors above. So, before you accuse me of violating NOR, be sure you aren't just being wrong (WRONG). -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of arguing with me head on, why not do some research and find out if mortal sin is a term that is exclusive to Catholism or not. In the mortal sin article, only different types of Catholism are discussed as having mortal sin. The Jehovah Witness section doesn't mention anything about mortal sin. Also, the Wikipedia article is not considered a reliable source. So, whatever your assertions may be, reliable sources are needed. Otherwise we are merely discussing your idea of something and my idea of the same thing. Also, I can agree that your parsed definition is a likeable definition, and sounds correct. If you want to generalize the concept, I can agree to that  -  but without reliable sources this discussion is just taking up talk page space. Do you have any references?
 * In any case, there is a more general concept of divine punishment, and an even more general concept of punishment. Also, mortal sin, whatever it may be, is not punishment, so this discussion is starting to veer off topic. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also the process which you encourage appears to be backwards. Find some articles or books on the subject and report on that, first. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SQ wrote: "Also, I can agree that your parsed definition is a likeable definition, and sounds correct." - That's good enough for now. I've communicated the basic essential-ness of common sense. If I am to do any further work on this article, it will be sometime when its free of people asserting a right to 'challenge and remove' anything I do. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed lede
Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal who has committed a breach of rules or who behaves in a manner deemed wrong by an individual or group.


 * 1) Authority is mentioned in at least 3 of the 4 sources (4th source inaccessible without $$)
 * 2) Offences need not be considered MORALLY wrong. Teams get penalized for being off-sides without being deemed morally at fault.
 * 3) HOW is PROPERTY punished? (see below)Steve Quinn (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) " usually in response to disobedience, defiance" is unneeded, as they are both included as behaviours & need not be singled out
 * 5) Actually, only Peters stands behind his def. Bedau never presents a def he fully supports.--JimWae (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jim, I will come back to you on this later. I like this. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jim, how about this - also add that punishment can be part of a process of disciplining  (source here "Discipline is necessary, and sometimes punishment is required." )
 * Also - Punishment does not automatically cause deterrence, prevention, or reform, and hence, is not a guarentee these outcomes will occur (same source). Steve Quinn (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jim, you will notice that the fourth source also leads with authority in the first sentence now that I have added the quote (see article reference). -16:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)~
 * Perhaps some of the following content is useful (from the $$ source - source #1). "Bcause punishment is both painful and guilt producing, its application calls for a justification. In Western culture, four basic justifications have been given: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. The history of formal punitive systems is one of a gradual transition from familial and tribal authority to the authority of organized society. Although parents today retain much basic authority to discipline their children, physical beatings and other severe deprivations—once widely tolerated—may now be called child abuse and result in criminal charges."

How is property punished?
In this context it sounds like property is a legal entity which can somehow be sanctioned or suffer consequences. It sounds like the legal entity is held to be distinct from the person, family, organization, or corporation, who, or which would otherwise own the property. This sounds similar to incorporating a business. When a business is incorporated it is a distinct legal entity and functions as such. Where to find material that explains this, regarding property? Steve Quinn (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In what 'context' are you referring? In the context of certain legal systems, corporations and companies are treated as 'legal persons,' in which context they can face certain 'punishments' - typically in the form of fines and reparations. There is some crossover here between punishment, penalty, and compensation from litigation - ie. 'punitive damages.' -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In the context of punishment. How is it a proprety can be punished? In what way can it be punished? Is there such a thing? - That context. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Property" cannot be punished. Entities of "a rational substance" can, and that such entities may also be "property" is not consequential. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am waiting for Jim Wade to chime in here, on this one. It is his orginal question (see above). In the meantime, do you have a link or a reference for that? Steve Quinn (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Conceptualizations

 * There is an understanding here that you are both missing in that concepts are not only pointers to related concepts, but they are containers for subordinate concepts. Are civil and criminal penalties not "punishments" per se? How about corporations? Your version mentions pets, but it doesn't bother to mention functioning non-human entities. Does the death penalty belong under 'criminal corrections,' or does that also qualify? In trying to be general, you seem to be missing a few extremely important things. If you start by writing generally, and work with the first things which come to your mind, your own innate capacity for word-association alone should point you to areas which you are overlooking.
 * 'Moral rightness' or 'wrongness' is not as central to the issue of punishment as is society, positions of authority, and orders of heirarchy. Hence we don't say punishments ← morality, we say society → punishments. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean by working with concepts. However, there are two points that discourage such a method. First anything produced from concept association, could not be used in a Wikipedia article because it would be construed as WP:OR, related to WP:NOR. Then if an attempt were made to match references it might be a disengenuous action, and the fit would probably cumbersome. It would be disjointed. Second, material placed in an article must represent reliable sources WP:RS and be able to be consistent with WP:VERIFY. So this is a major hurdle just as we leave the gate; perhaps insurmountable.


 * It is as obvious as the nose on your face that civil and criminal penalties are forms of punishments, and corporations can be slapped with heavy fines (punishment). Also, corporations, I am sure have their own methods of punishing individuals in their employ. However, there are two points of discouragement here. First, this is too narrow, per se, for the introduction. Civil and Criminal and Fines and 'Death Penalty' are included in the general description of punishment, automatically. Rather than explicitly delineating these facts in the introduction, simplify the situation (not complicating it) by discussing these later in the article. The second point of discouragement is that once again we would be engaging in conceptual association, promoting disengenuity, cumbersome fits, dijointed text, and are constrained by representing reliable sources subject to verifiability.


 * I think there should be mention of non-human entities (other animals) in the text side by side with pets. But once again I have to communicate it from the perspective a good reference, or a reliable source. Thanks for your feedback Steve Quinn (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is agreed 'moral rightness' or 'wrongness' is not as central to the issue of punishment as related to society, and positions of authority. Hence we don't say or equate punishments with morality. Instead we say society, through some sort of process, can deliver punishments deserved or not. Therefore, morality is no longer part of the general description. Yes, its true that orders of heirarchy (i.e. military) require displine to maintain order. Hence, punishment comes into play at some point. But this concept is also automatically included in the general description of punishment. Hence, it as an opportunity to expand this later in the article as one of the spokes (if you will) of punishments. Once again constraining policies of WP:RS and verifiablity would, of course, would be primary. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SQ wrote: "..anything produced from concept association, could not be used in a Wikipedia article because it would be construed as WP:OR, related to WP:NOR." - In order for material here to qualify as free, it has to be actually written by a contributor, putting that text into the public domain under a free license. Writing is not, by definition, "original research," and writing originally is not by definition a violation of original research, in fact Wikipedia demands original writing. 'Concept association' simply means 'think' - good writing does not come otherwise. I see lots of well-sourced articles that either 1) dont get to the point upfront, or 2) seem cobbled together adversarially and lack coherence.
 * SQ wrote: "...if an attempt were made to match references it might be a disengenuous action, and the fit would probably cumbersome." - I agree with this, and this is why I raised this point earlier. It seemed strange that people were working so hard to back up writing with sources that 1) were added to unitellegible writing from two years back, and 2) didn't even fit the writing.
 * SQ wrote: "Rather than explicitly delineating these facts in the introduction, simplify the situation (not complicating it) by discussing these later in the article." - Please see WP:LEDE. Pencil-thin ledes don't work. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Writing is simply writing it is not OR or FDR. Wikipedia does demand original writing. However a distinction between original writing and original research has been conceptualized, and then promgulated. The key idea (or concept) brought forth appears to be attribution. All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. Hey, I didn't create this constraint, Wikipedia did. Written-out, concept associated material, in a Wikipedia article, has no association with a reliable published source. There is no connection. Hence, it is challengable and removable. From your view this is unfortunate, and I do empathize. But can you single-handedly stop a rolling boulder? May as well face facts, a rolling boulder cannot be stopped by one person. There is also another point related to this. The view or position advanced must be the sources view, and cannot be my view. It is also challengable and removable.


 * Truthfully, this supported lede seems new to me. Jim Wade appeared to reason that this was the original, and supported lede, unfettered by complexity. It has immediate value to me only because it was able to vividly present the concept of punishment, and its related facets with quick, broad, strokes. It is agreed this has presented small problematic scenarios, where minor quirks in the wording has motivated further investigation. But it does mostly connect to the aquired references. If the concepts presented in the wording of lede were alien to the references, it would be readily apparent. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

SQ wrote: "Written-out, concept associated material, in a Wikipedia article, has no association with a reliable published source." - What are you saying here? SQ wrote: "Hence, it is challengable and removable." - Certainly. But I am not accustomed to being followed around just to have my edits to any random article 'challenged and removed.' SQ wrote: "It is agreed this has presented small problematic scenarios, where minor quirks in the wording has motivated further investigation" - Ha. Its called 'cognition.' That we are civilly discussing what that cognition yields is called 'working toward consensus.' -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, maybe I got too descriptive. Hey, it was worth a try. Essentially, there is a distinction between original writing and orginal research. The key bench mark, or even the key word, is attribution. Any material placed in an aritcle must be attributable to a reliable source. I didn't mean to come across like I was personally addressing you (because I wasn't).  I meant this applies to all. In other words, I cannot stop a rolling boulder. I meant there must be a connection between the material and the reliable source. And, yes, another way to describe the process is consensus building. However, at least a couple of us are trying to determine the value of replacing response to disobedience, defiance -  with behaviors. And to determine, from sources, what punishment of property is. This is taking place in one or two of the above sections at the moment, by the way. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you were being "too descriptive." I think you were being honest - that the subject which you happened to take coincidental interest in with me is something you had not previously considered, and that considering the concept has sparked certian insights. SQ wrote: "However, at least a couple of us are trying to determine the value of replacing response to disobedience, defiance - with behaviors." - Take the issue of 'punishing defiance' for example. Defiance is not 'punished' - it is the action that is punished, and it is the action that is characterized as 'defiant.' -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True enough. It is the action that gets the focus. And based on sources we are able to change the wording to simply behaviors. This way we don't have to get overly - philosophical. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cloud
 * concept // action
 * corrections, penalty,*
 * authority, heirarchy, society
 * imposition
 * consequences
 * destructive actions
 * education, boundaries
 * range of consequences

Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group. Inflicted unpleasantness without authority is not punishment, but is characterized as something else. Punishment may be inflicted as a result of a formal process, or informally within any organized group, for example, a family. Punishment does not automatically cause deterrence, prevention, or reform, and hence, is not a guarentee these outcomes will occur. Furthermore, punishment can be part of a process of disciplining. Punishment also has justifications. For example, in the western societies there are four fundamental justificatins: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation.

Punishment is the concept of an authority imposing corrections —often in the form of negative consequences or penalties —upon subjects (cf. legal persons) who commit actions which the authority deems destructive. Within human society, punishments are imposed either to educate individuals in the understanding of consequence in general, or to isolate and segregate individuals (incarceration, execution) who appear to be incapable of living within the boundaries of such consequence (ie. society).

Central to the idea of punishment are the concepts of reciprocity and retribution, as well as proportionality —such that punishments are made with fairness in mind.

In human context, such destructive actions are typically called offenses, and range from minor infractions up to crimes and capital crimes. Such consequences may range from citations and fines, up to incarceration and, for capital crimes, the death penalty.

Collective punishment is an abuse of justice wherein large groups of people are "punished" for the offenses of individuals, or for actions or qualities which are subjectively deemed an "offense."

In the context of religion, divine punishment refers to the penalties given by God to human beings for the committing of sin &mdash;of which mortal sin is the most costly. Hell is the place in the afterlife where individuals are punished, in accord with divine law and divine judgment.

In contexts where animal behavior is under human scrutiny, the idea of "punishment" may be applied to animals. Pets are notably subject to corrective punishments by their human owners.

Disassembly

 * 1) "Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group." - Where is the mention of consequentialism?
 * 2) "Inflicted unpleasantness without authority  is not punishment, but is characterized as something else." - Why is a caveat the second sentence in the lede?
 * 3) "Punishment may be inflicted as a result of a formal process, or informally within any organized group, for example, a family." - Why 'inflicted,' why not 'imposed?'
 * 4) "Punishment does not automatically cause deterrence, prevention, or reform, and hence, is not a guarentee these outcomes will occur." - Deterrence, prevention and reform are not "caused," they are (or are not) achieved.
 * 5) "Furthermore, punishment can be part of a process of disciplining." - Disciplining what? Disciplining for what? What process? Is this related to some kind of learning?
 * 6) "Punishment also has justifications." - Why the short sentence?
 * 7) "For example, in the western societies there are four fundamental justificatins: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation." - These aren't justifications. These are objectives. A 'justification for punishment' is something much deeper than you are giving treatment to. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your questions, but everything here is taken from the sources cited, and therefore supported. This is not stuff that I just made up. There is nothing to justify because it is backed up by the references. Sorry. For example, justifications are dilineated by one, or more  of the refernces. The only thing I can tell you is to read the references. If you have access to any encyclopedias try that too.  Steve Quinn (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Its possible that your claim that these idiosyncracies all come from 'the sources' is inaccurate. Take for example the word "inflicted" - the word generally refers to the 'inflicting' of damage upon a being - which is not inline with the imposition of punishment, which is to punish, not damage. In the first sentence, you use "impose," but in later sentences, you use "inflict." Where does the word "inflict" come from? It seems to come from two sources, which refer not to punishment in general, but to the usage of pain as a punishment. Not all punishments use pain. In the etymology section, the term "inflicted" is used to refer to the colloquial usage of "punishment" as meaning 'inflicting pain' - a colloquialism taken from boxing. You appear to be inflicting upon the reader an improper overuse of the word "inflict." Misusing the sources in this way has led you to use "inflicted" out of context. You will have to qualify the word as referring to only special cases of "punishment" in which pain is used. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Instead of placing the sources at the end ([1][2][3][4][5][6]) you should place them inline to support the sentences which are most connected to the reference. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First, apparently inflicted and imposed are synonyms, and they are probably interchangable. Here are four sources the third sounds like what you are saying, and the fourth applies both ways of looking at the word.,  ,  ,.
 * I believe that was the intent to use "impose" in the first senence and "inflict" in the second sentence --- because both of these words do appear to be interchangable.   It may be that I didn't write the first sentence, I don't recall.
 * Second, conceptually, I have to agree, it appears that all punishments are not used to cause damage. However, it could be argued that with punishment there is always some damage, even if it is minimal damage. For example, when a hockey player has to sit in the penalty box, a minimum amount of damage is caused. The team is short one player and at a disadvantage for the duration. They could even lose the game if they are unable to defend against a goal from the opposing team (because of the temporary loss of one player). Furthermore,  the player himself may not be emotionally content to sit in the penalty box while his team is outmanned (or for other reasons). Can you think of case where some damage is not caused? I think this is an interesting point (one that had not occured to me).
 * Third I prefer the word inflicted in the second sentence because, to me, it is more descriptive. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, damage implies there is pain involved. In the example above, it is emotional pain that is the consequence. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SQ wrote: "First, apparently inflicted and imposed are synonyms, and they are probably interchangable" - In informal language, one can even say words like "change" and "transformation" are "synonyms," but here we try to write formally. Each word has a different semantic field and their usage differs in ways according to their field of meanings. "Imposed" and "inflicted" are even more different than the above example, and so there is no way one can I can seriously accept that they are "synonyms."
 * SQ wrote: "Here are four sources the third sounds like what you are saying, and the fourth applies both ways of looking at the word." - These are just dicdefs for "inflict." The second one is a thesarus which gives the terse definition for "inflict" as "[to] impose something," but note that "impose" is not itself one of the given synonyms for "inflict:" "[to] administer, apply, bring upon, command.."
 * Why you are trying unworkable arguments to defend a version you probably didn't even write to begin with, I dunno. What this adds up to is that you are overstating how "punishment" is sometimes a colloquialism for "pain," and underplaying how we use formal language here - not informal language. Regards, Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I supplied reliable source references that show these are synonyms. "Imposed" seems to work well in the first sentence, and "inflicted" seems to work well in the second sentence. And, as I stated earlier I prefer inflicted in the second sentence because, to me, it is a more descriptive word. There appears to be no capable refutation regarding the use of these words, because these are backed up by reliable sources. In any case, except for this article being on my watchlist, I am done with this article. Personally, I have no need for further discussion. I am satisfied with the lede, as are the other editors (apparently). Feel free to attempt to discuss these issues with the other editors of this article, if they have the time, and if you have the inclination. So happy trails, and happy editing. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SQ wrote: "I supplied reliable source references that show these are synonyms." - Nonsense. They are not synonyms and the "reliable source references" you "supplied" don't support your idea that they are interchangeable. SQ wrote: "Imposed" seems to work well in the first sentence, and "inflicted" seems to work well in the second sentence." - They only way that "inflicted" works is if the sentence is referring to some pain or damage as the punishment. In general terms, it doesn't and therefore "inflicted" cannot work. Keep in mind this is just one issue that Ive focused on. Your writing has other issues which also need to be addressed. - Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I wrote before, I am no longer working on this article. Hence, there is no need to contact me on my talk page anymore. Also, the "essay" tag does not appear to be an accurate assessment of this article. I am sure the other editors, who have lately been working on this article, will agree. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Until I came along and you followed me here, the previous editors involved enough to talk it out on this page did so in June 2008 - over two years ago. The point being, contrary to what you claim, there are no "other editors" of this article.

Thus if I were to make a correction to the page, only to find you reverting it, it will of course indicate only that what you claim regarding another point —ie. your disinvolvement in this article —is not in fact true either. If it is, I will gladly make some improvements and will continue in my "happy editing" and try to imagine that your involvement here was well-motivated. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lede
I am taking a break for a bit. The 3rd paragraph of the lede is a bit repetitive, especially the part about justifications & purposes. Perhaps someone else would like to take a crack at it. --JimWae (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Collective Punishment
Collective punishment is not an abuse of justice all the time. In the U.S. military's bootcamps, this technique is effectively used as a learning tool for all. It is very important to realize that one person's behavior can impact the group. Group in this case can mean "squad" or even batallion. On a naval vessel it can effect a division, or the entire ship. For example, opening a door to the outside of the ship where it is white light on the inside can give a away the position of the ship. For a different example, when taking on fuel the smoking lamp is out. From the horses mouth so to speak - the U.S. Navy - pertaining to the smoking lamp :
 * "The exact date and origin of the smoking lamp has been lost. However, it probably came into use during the 16th Century when seamen began smoking on board vessels. The smoking lamp was a safety measure. It was devised mainly to keep the fire hazard away from highly combustible woodwork and gunpowder. Most navies established regulations restricting smoking to certain areas. Usually, the lamp was located in the forecastle or the area directly surrounding the galley indicting that smoking was permitted in this area. Even after the invention of matches in the 1830s, the lamp was an item of convenience to the smoker. When particularly hazardous operations or work required that smoking be curtailed, the unlighted lamp relayed the message. "The smoking lamp is lighted" or "the smoking lamp is out' were the expressions indicating that smoking was permitted or forbidden.


 * The smoking lamp has survived only as a figure of speech. When the officer of the deck says "the smoking lamp is out" before drills, refueling or taking ammunition, that is the Navy's way of saying "cease smoking." Steve Quinn (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I can agree that sometimes it is not an abuse. If it is part of training or discipline of a group, it could be justified. It is also abused as a justification sometimes. --JimWae (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jim Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Intro
The words "something negative or unpleasant" are vague. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This wording is derived from the sources. I recognize them. Hence, I suppose these are intentionally vague to "paint with a broad brush". In any case, what words would you prefer to put in their place? Also "something negative or unpleasant" is a very ordinary way of expressing whatever is being expressed. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's look at it this way: Punishments, even financial ones, are often not simply "negative" or "unpleasant" - they are severe. From the authority's point of view, "negative andor unpleasant" is just not effective. This is not to say that punishments should be more severe, just that this is their most notable property - not simply "unpleasantness." I think the wording I found was superiour because it simply said punishments → penalties → consequences, which is more general than Jim's wording. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Defining "punishment" in terms of "penalty" is cicular because "penalty" is defined in terms of "punishment". Sometimes circularity is unavoidable, but in this case it is avoidable. "Something negative or unpleasant" is not circular & defines punishment in terms of simpler concepts. Linking to penalty does no good since it is a disambig page. Also, the sources themselves say "something negative or unpleasant". Something negative and unpleasant CAN be SEVERELY negative & SEVERLY unpleasant - or not. If anyone has a better wording that clears all the hurdles, let's hear it. JimWae (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with JIm. The phrase "something negative or unpleasant" is from the sources, which is how it wound up in the introduction. Hence, there is no need to add more, or less, to this wording. Jim has aptly shown that severity is included in this phrase (as well as its opposite). I doubt that there is better wording which "clears all the hurdles" Steve Quinn (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why Stevertigo is bothering even having this discussion. He keeps changing the text and keeps changing the text, and keeps changing the text, and keeps changing the text - against consensus. How many edits did he make on Sept 16th, yesterday? A very large amount. There is a consensus agreement as to what the lede, and this article is supposed to be. I have changed it back to the consensus lede. Stevertigo, please leave this lede alone. It was written weeks ago by agreement. Stop bothering me about it, and stop bothering other people about it. Please stop trying to impose your point of view on this article. I think you style of editing is disruptive. And please stop trying to hi-jack this article. I will contact the other editors recently involved with this article. And, I will take this to a stronger venue if I have to. I am close to bringing this situation to ANI. If this editor alters the lede again I am going to ANI. This is slow motion disruptive editing in an attempt to impose a Point of View. As simple as that.  Steve Quinn (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all I didn't make all that many changes since Jim came back, in fact I only made three small edits. Steve's ire probably means he need to take a break from this article. Jim and I can deal with it ourselves. Taking a Wikibreak can be a good thing, particularly from someone who swore that he was done editing this article and that I should not bother him with updates on his talk page. If Steve wants to remain involved in our recent editing he can pick something from my recent edits.


 * Secondly, Jim's point about "punishment" and "penalty" has some merit, but the main issue is 'severity'. I will consider submitting other language to the committee, but the point being is that punishment consists of penalties and penalties are often severe - beyond what is connoted by the terms used. "Unpleasant" is an itch. The penalties required for our most prolific murderers exceed those terms in both scope and meaning. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am talking about 23 seperate edits made by Stevertigo on September 16, 2010, after a one month, and one week haitus. First, there were 16 edits,,  in a row (see middle of page), until Jim Wade finally stepped in. And it appears to be the same situation as when I stepped in over a month ago -  Jim Wade doing his best to counter Stevertigo's unorthodox editing style. By the third Stevertigo edit, two sentenes were added, which were a creation not supported by any added references or those references already part of this article . When Jim Wade finally steps in (after Stevertigo's 16 rapid fire changes), what are Jim's first edits?


 * Edit number one: "destructive" is not in sources, is not part of def & is not necessarily so + consequences & corrections vague - and not in sources) . Jim Wade has had to counter content, which is not supported by sources.


 * Edit number two: source says retribution . Again, Stevertigo has added content not attributable to a source, and has to be countered.


 * Edit number three: no support for "destructive" ditto - same as the other two.


 * Edit number four: the boundaries of such consequence originally added by Steveritigo and is removed. Why? Because, Jim Wade has had to counter content which is not supported by sources - again. (for the fourth time)


 * This is the same story we went through in the now archived talk page. This type of editing is a drain on Jim Wade's time, and now it is drain on my time. It is also a drain on any editor's time, who follows policies and guidelines, when another editor does not. The constant explaining, illustrating of points, and having to diffuse editing not supported by reliable sources. This is then followed by the constant refusal of one editor to "get it" ,i.e., to realize that unsupported content (or material) cannot be accepted. As an aside, the time I spent writing this could have been used for working on something else. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you need to take a break, Steve. And no one appointed you the defender of this article or any other. I understand that you wish to counter my "unorthodox style," but perhaps you will be more successful after you've taken a break and recovered. Your reverting the article back to a version before the one integrating our edits is a clear sign that you've lost your sense of the basics. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: To better illustrate the problems with your writing, I've made a spoken version of the introduction (my first): -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Disassembly/point by point critique

 * "Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group."
 * "unpleasant" is besides the point. Because punishments are often severe, causing one to lose their freedom or their property, the wording "something negative or unpleasant" is generic. The wording "by an individual or group" is also generic, as it covers everyone - what else is there but individuals or groups?


 * "Inflicted unpleasantness without authority is not punishment, but is characterized as something else."
 * "Characterized" as what? What is the proper term for "inflicted unpleasantness without authority?"


 * "Punishment may be inflicted as a result of a formal process, or informally within any organized group, for example, a family."
 * Punishments are imposed, not "inflicted." Only corporal punishments may have the connotation of an "infliction." A family is not an "organized group," and the issue of punishment within a family has a clear purpose (which the lede does not mention), namely Corrections.


 * "Punishment does not automatically cause deterrence, prevention, or reform, and hence, is not a guarantee these outcomes will occur."
 * Punishment doesn't "cause" anything in a direct causality sort of way, hence saying it doesn't do certain things (ie. idealistic goals) is oblique.


 * "Furthermore, punishment can be part of a process of disciplining."
 * No kidding. Punishments have something to do with disciplining, ie. corrections?


 * "Punishment also has justifications."
 * Really.


 * "For example, in the western societies there are four fundamental justifications: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation."
 * There is no basis for an East-West schism here. The four listed things, retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation are goals, not necessarily of punishment, and certainly not "justification[s]."

-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stevertigo that all of the above are examples of bad writing and not suitable for a definition.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maunus - I am not sure what you are talking about. What you are seeing is sourced statements vs. a critique off the top of Stevertigo's head (not derived from sources). Please do not encourage an edit conflict here at this time. Stevertigo is beginning to see agreement with guidelines and policies, and let us allow this step forward to take place. I really don't want to have to revert unsourced statements again. If you have more or better reliable sources, please present them here on the talk page. Believe me I am interested. And I am sure other editors are interested as well. Currently we have a consensus lead. Also please review the Archived Talk page, because we have been through many discussions regarding this issue. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, this is not my writing. I did not invent the descriptions, I am reporting on sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if what is there is lifted directly from sources then we have a copyright problem. If it is not lifted directly from sources then some one paraphrased it and something was supposedly lost in the paraphrasing so that we now have a lead that doesn't work textually. In any case it is simply not very well written and can be greatly improved by giving attention to textual coherence. I disagree that Steves ideas are OR here - he is critiquing the writing not the ideas.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between sourcing your writing and parroting the sources in a way that becomes increasingly decoherent. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maunus - I don't recall you mentioning "if this...then copyright problems", before in your second statement. I don't think saying this off the top of your head is conducive to a "collegial atmosphere" of conferring with other editors. In fact this type of behavior appears to be combative at the very least, so please don't do it again. Thanks. In fact I find statements like that very offensive when not based in any kind of fact. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition: A source
Sociology in Our Times: The Essentials by Diana Kendall uses a definition of Punishment as "Any action designed to deprive a person of things of value (including liberty) because of some offense the person is thought to have committed". This definition gets around some of the problems with the current lead definition: One of the problems with the current lead is the way it doesn't explain "authority" and its relation to punishment. The authority involved is in fact the ethical or legal system that the one applying the punishment is appealing to. This is already inherent in the statement "deemed wrong" - if something is "deemed wrong" it is deemed wrong in relation to an ethical or legal system. The authority part is redundant, and makes the passage unclear. The phrase Punishment has justifications is doubly redundant - because punishment cannot be applied if it is not thought to be justified - that is if it is not based on a legal or ethical value system. Also the four "justifications" are not justifications they are goals. Sociology in our times (p. 204) describe the deterrence, retribution, incapacitacion and rehabilitation as being historically traditional, but it also describes new goals of punishment in modern societies e.g. restoration. So those four are not the only goals of punishment in western societies. Also the phrase "punishment can also be part of a process of disciplining" this is also redundant because it is inherent in two of four goals of punihsment - rehabilitation and deterrnce - both of which are aimed at making the punished person conform to social norms in future behaviour i.e. disciplining him. ·Maunus· ƛ · 02:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Authority doesn't have to be explained in the lead, nor its relation to punishment. First, it is very clear what the relationship is. Second, any further explanation can be dealt with in the text. This is the lede - the introduction - in depth arguments and describing complex relationships are not necessary in the lead. It is nevertheless necessary to include "authority" as part of the lede description, because without authority it is not punishment.
 * If the ethical or legal system is inherent in the term "deemed wrong" then those systems are covered by the words "deemed wrong". In addition, "deemed wrong" is apparently a general overview describing these systems and, hence, appropriate for the lead.
 * I don't see the authority part in lede as redundant at all. Authority is an intrinsic part of punishment - or its not punishment (as the sources say, and as the lede says.)
 * No, the justifications, are justifications. Read through the first pages of the references - it is right there. I agree that restoration is a goal, and not one of the justifications.
 * No "punishment as part of the process of disciplining" is not redundant. This is again a description taken from one or more of the sources. It is very clear that punishment can or is part of disciplining. At the same time, discipline does not have to be involved for punishment to occur. Apparently, punishment can occur outside the scope of discipline, otherwise why bother making this distinction, which is what the source does.
 * Thanks for your input. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, "deemed wrong" is from the sources. I didn't invent it. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is redundant because it is mentioned in different forms in four places - "deemed wrong" implies a value statement that hinges on authority. It then mentions and specifies that authority is necessaty (we already know that because otherwise something couldn't be deemed wrong) it then says that punishment can have justifications which is wrong - punishment must have a justification in order to be carried out with authority. Look, the lead is simply not well written. I'll give it a shot and you can comment.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I read the sources given now and they all come across more clearly than the lead. It is the writing that is the problem.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead
I note that the lede has improved a bit. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC) -
 * It still uses the word "authoritative" in a wrong sense and fails to distinguish that the authority comes from an ethical system and that it is the ethical system that provides the punishment with authority. I think my version was considerably better and JimWae didn't provide any arguments for his changes to it. The wording "somthing negative or unpleasant" is so weak as to be ridiculous (and the sources all phrase that in a much better and more concrete manner) the notion of "to a person or animal" is ridiculous as well as it is much too specific "individual" is precise enough the instances of punishing animals for wrongdoings are of course existant but isn't really an exception to the rule that requires such special treatment in the first paragraph of the lead. It is simply not well written. ·Maunus· ƛ · 00:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't really get all that - got other things going on. Will come back in a bit, but here's what I originally wrote before Jim and Steve. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I agree of course that it needs work, but I think, given our issues, its important that I express appreciation for any progress or improvement. JimWae's current writing seems much more in the form of a proper lede. There are still some essential concepts missing from the lead, for example consequences and corrections. It may help him to employ a concept cloud of the most relevant topics. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the lack of concept clouding is the problem. ·Maunus· ƛ · 01:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll recuse myself for now. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Peters - metaphorical punishment is not the only alternate condition for experiencing unpleastness ,i.e., a negative experience, such as "taking a lot of punishment from their opponents". Experiencing unpleasantness can occur from another person's spite, for example - and that is according to Peters. Also, with his three criteria, I think Peters has actually given the best general description of punishment, so far. In any case, I am altering this sentence slightly, I think it gives the wrong idea. Other feedback to follow. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ·Maunus - I believe this team of editors will need more from the source you added in entitled "Sociology in Our Times: The Essentials". At least provide quotes with the source, as we have done with the six other sources. This way we can ensure that all of the material grounded in the source. Also, I notice that this book is available online in a limited fashion here. In this case, if you can provide page numbers that would be great. Personally, I prefer both quotes and page numbers for this aricle. With the quotes it is much easier to actually read where the statement is derived from. If necessary create more than one reference with this one source, using different quotes. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - retribution being central is very good. I did not pick up on that, before. The only problem I have right now with the lead is describing negative consequences without authority is not punishment. There is a metaphorical use of "punishment". Also in this category there is "spite" and "revenge". Perhaps we should use synonyms? Steve Quinn (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Conditions

 * (Without authority) I suppose this is my last thought on the matter for the time being, until others come along to give feedback. The only way I can see to crack this nut is for two or three explicit statements. Looking at what we have in this category:
 * Revenge - " -Punishment- ... involves the intentional infliction of pain or of something unpleasant on someone who has committed a breach of rules... by someone who is in authority, who has a right to act in this way. Otherwise, it would be impossible to distinguish 'punishment' from 'revenge' . "
 * Spite - "People in authority can, of course, inflict pain on people at whim. But this would be called 'spite' unless it were inflicted as a consequence of a breach of rules on the part of the sufferer".
 * Reward - "Similarly a person in authority might give a person £5 as a consequence of his breaking a rule. But unless this were regarded as painful or at least unpleasant for the recipient it could not be counted as a case of -punishment- "
 * Metaphor - "...about boxers taking a lot of punishment from their opponents, in which only the first condition is present. But this is a metaphorical use which is peripheral to the central use of the term" .
 * Without a breach of rules - negative consequences administered without a breach of rules is not punisnment.


 * The passages above are quoted from the sources in the ariticle. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Improved lede

 * I think the lede has improved and I suppose thanks goes to Maunus, Jim Wade, and Maunus seems to find Stevertigo's input helpful. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact the lede appears to have really good coverage of punishment. I am sure whoever wrote the last part is knowledgeable (beginning with: "Punishments differ in the degree of severity....") The coverage here is remarkable, and it has neutral wording. I think the only thing missing is sources to completely back it up. I am guessing that this is derived from sources, so it's just a matter of matching sources with the material. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoke too soon
I spoke too soon, when I wrote (in the edit summar) "go from the three criteria and build from there". I think the coverage of the lede is sufficient. It is just that I was impressed with the concept when I read it this last time. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite
I couldn't help noticing that alot of this article appears to be original research. I am not saying that it is - only that it appears to be that way. I think a rewrite after the lede is in order. The lede is still in good condition. I removed text from one section - please see the edit history of the article. I might look for an earlier version that is better. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed more text from the article (after the lede). It may be a question of not knowing the scope of misinformation that was contained in the article. In any case, I removed unsourced statements that may be or may not be WP:OR, WP:MADEUP, WP:SYN, speculation, random thoughts, or essay material. Now we can write a much better, and sourced article. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested quote
The more cynical among us might consider the phrase correctional process as a euphemism for what is more aptly termed the punishment process, and we would be right. [ref omitted] The correctional enterprise is preeminently about punishment, but, if something positve results from that punishment (such as cessation of criminal behavior), it is a bonus. Earlier scholars wre more honest, calling what we now call corrections by the name penology, which means the study of punishment for crime. No matter what we call our prisions, jails, and other systems of formal social control, we are compelling people to do what they do not want to do, and such arm-twising is experienced by them as punitive regardless of what we call it. From Stohr et al. p. 2. The emphasis is in original. By the way, I'm uncomfortable with large amount of quotes used in this article. They may be considered WP:COPYVIO given that practically every source had a paragraph quoted verbatim. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank-you. That quote does not support "most often". It supports corrections being a term for penology (not punishment) -- "corrections" usually referring to criminal imprisonment. This article also covers non-criminal punishments, less formal punishments, and punishments other than prison
 * Most of the quotes are there because they were requested to verify the statements made in the article. Only Peters is longer than a sentence or two. Peters is referenced 5 times in the article now - in 5 separate places and different sentences support different refs. I looked, but have not found any wiki-policy on what constitutes copyvio in refs. Peters work is also referred to by one of the other sources.--JimWae (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what this fuss was about. You changed "but now is more often called corrections" to "or, often in modern texts, 'correction'" . In the same diff you remove the part about punishment being called correction with a hard-to-understand edit summary; I assumed you objected to the fact that I omitted the "process" suffix present in the source cited, so I've added that . I agree that adding more context is/was better. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested quote (2)—evo bio
I see you've requested a quote on that as well, here it goes:

Can you imagine a society in which punishment did not exist? What would such a society be like; could it survive? If you cannont realistically imagine such a society you are not alone, for the desire to punish those who have harmed us or otherwise cheated on the social contract is as od the species itself. Punishment (referred to as moralistic or retaliatory aggression) aimed at discouraging cheats is also observed in every social species of animal, leading evolutionary biologists to conclude that punishment is an evolutionarily stable strategy designed [sic] by natural selection both for the emergence and the maintenance of cooperative behaviors. [4 citations] Imaging of the human brain via positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) provides hard evidence that positive feelings accompany the punishment of those who have wronged us and that punishing others reduces the negative feelings evoked when we are wronged. Neuroimaging studies such as these show that, when [the] subjects punished cheats, even at a cost to themselves, they had significantly increased blood flow to areas of the brain that respond to reward, suggesting that punishing those who have wronged us provides emotional relief and reward for the punisher [2 citations]. These studies strongly imply that we are hard wired to "get even", as suggested by the popular saying "revenge is sweet". ¶ Sociologists will note the similarity of the evolutionary argument with Emile Durkheim's (1893/1964) contention that crime and punishment are central to social life. Durkheim considers crime as normal in the sense that it exists in every society and that criminal behavior is in everyone's behavioral repertoire. Punishing criminals maintains solidarity, in part, because the rituals of punishment reaffirm the justness of the social norms, particularly those concerning cooperation among society's members. Punishment is functional because it defines the boundaries of he acceptable behavior and allows citizens to express their moral outrage. [goes in more depth on Durkheim, not so relevant here]

Hope this helps. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

make page: punishment (neuroscience), punishing thought and actions

 * Punishment in the brain (cybersearchable term)


 * 1) male hormones
 * 2) some individuals value punishment more than other vaues (family, love etc)
 * 3) political opinions
 * 4) aggression
 * 5) sociological impact of excessive punishment
 * 6) (some different entries my brain wasn't able to think, but other individuals certainly will)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4116:6000:C4EE:C643:B0E6:1466 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Criminal punishment
If the lead is going to fixate on criminal punishment (after my recent edits, it does not), it needs to say so explicitly. But then, would not punishment in the large also deserve its own page? &mdash; MaxEnt 19:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article is awfully convoluted
Simplify, man. Vranak (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * But shortening it the way you did makes the first sentence a terribly incomplete as a definition.--JimWae (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find it is now much less convoluted, and the 1st sentence is still quite a complete definition.--JimWae (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)