User talk:Zachava96

Hi! If anyone has things to say to me, this is the place for it. I may check this page infrequently, though, as I'm not a very active editor. --Zman9600 (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

We keep edit conflicting
Sorry about that! If I have already left a template, do you want me to remove it or are you fine with leaving mine there? S0091 (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've just been removing my template if you already responded to them, since in the edit history you had posted first. No worries. --Zman9600 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I will try to do a better job ensuring my revert is successful beforehand. :) S0091 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Gershoff misrepresents the original studies, but they do support the claim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.167.213.65#March_2019

In the source already given, Gershoff says:

"The few existing randomized control trials showed that physical punishment was no more effective than other methods in eliciting compliance. In one such study, an average of eight spankings in a single session was needed to elicit compliance, and there was “no support for the necessity of the physical punishment.”"

And this is true, however these high numbers were true of other tactics as well (because it was focusing on clinically defiant children). However, the only other method that was as effective was an empty 4x5 isolation room with a 4-foot high plywood barrier - it has not been tested in other settings and no other method was found to be as effective.

See this for a fuller explanation of Roberts' RCTs: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1566&context=lcp

Furthermore, studies focusing on specific forms of spanking rather than it in general and that compared it against other punishments often showed insignificant negatives or even positive results:


 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/15.10.49.PR0.112.3.933-975
 * http://christopherjferguson.com/Larzelere%20et%20al.,%20CD.pdf
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10567-005-2340-z
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00977030
 * http://www.appstate.edu/~steelekm/classes/psy5300/Documents/Benjet&Kazdin2003.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.213.65 (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The conclusion that you came to was one that the author of the source did not reach. This violates the WP:NOR policy. From the policy:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. (emphasis added)
 * If you can find a source that supports your claim directly, please feel free to bring it up on the talk page and reach consensus on this matter. --Zman9600 (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, but the existing source is weaker than the paper that I gave which gives a longer explanation of the RCTs and supports my claim. Until I bring it up there, the existing claim should be removed at least.  Furthermore, I did offer research that directly supports the claim that milder forms have little negative effect or even positive effects. Ender-00 (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to bring this up on the article's talk page so that other editors can weigh in; however, I would be cautious of removing one side completely, especially since may of the studies I find seem to go the other way. --Zman9600 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Why?
It was my first time from this IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.128.53 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI - Just reported them to AIV. S0091 (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a bit of a moot point now, but I went to final warning immediately because your vandalism contained "The first s I decided to vandalize this article because I was bored." You clearly knew what you were doing was wrong, but you did it anyway. Then, you did it again after being warned. --Zman9600 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Upgrading accuracy - sorry for missing the earlier reference issue
The original quote is poorly referenced - it is a partial quote, referenced in an interview, where the original person is quoted by a second person, and that quote is used. I changed it to link to the original and complete quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.195.214 (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)