Talk:Corporal punishment in the home/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Italy in the map

119.224.14.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) complained that the map is in error in showing Italy as a state where domestic corporal punishment is not prohibited, citing the 1996 Supreme Court case. While this case has the status of law, in the decade since, the law has not been updated to reflect this. As the map (based on this source) treats all countries the same based on what the codified law explicitly says, it is coloured to show Italy as a non-abolition state. Gabbe (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Crime rates and spanking bans

The entire section titled "Crime rates and spanking bans" is original research, so I've removed it. [1] Discussing any effect of "corporal punishment in the home" on crime rates in particular areas is synthesis unless that connection is reported by reliable sources. None of the listed references mention this topic at all, except the long anti-anti-spanking quote, and that was from an opinion essay in an out-of-print local paper, with no peer-review and no particular qualifications listed for the author, not a reliable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Pros and cons"

Do we see a "Pros and cons" section in the article "Female genital cutting"? No. Adding a "Pros and cons" section in an article describing violence towards children (whether legal or not) is insulting and represents a pro spanking attitude. This should be changed to something more neutral. "Different aspects" or something. 82.181.98.100 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As the section currently (more or less) lists differing scientific opinions, how about "Scientific opinions" or "Research on corporal punishment" or something? Gabbe (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Perhaps "Scientific Findings and Opinions" since it is a combination of expert opinions and empirical research.Legitimus (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Pros and cons" just means the arguments for and against, which is a perfectly legitimate title. I think many people will think any comparison with "female genital cutting" is completely absurd. Ordinary spanking is not remotely commensurable with mutilation. Nor in many people's view is it reasonable to describe it as "violence towards children". It is discussing it in terms of "pros and cons" that is the neutral, objective stance, which is what Wikipedia should be doing. It is you, 82.181.98.100, who are importing your own prejudices into the issue by declaring otherwise. The article should be left as it is. Alarics (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Both female genital cutting and corporal punishment are forms of violence that are legal/socially acceptable in some countries and illegal/socially unacceptable in some other countries. You can see from comments above that there is more neutral terminology that could be used here, so I think it should be used. And yes, it is violence, it is just legal violence in many countries. Similarly self defence, for example, is a form of legal violence. 82.181.250.242 (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what could be more neutral than "pros and cons". By saying that this "represents a pro-spanking attitude" you betray your own bias and lack of neutrality. There are mainstream opinions in favour as well as against, and Wikipedia must represent all these opinions fairly and not take sides on the issue. If you feel so strongly about it that you can't stomach a neutral stance being taken on this subject, you disqualify yourself from involvement here. -- Alarics (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's no secret that I'm personally disgusted when people discuss "pros and cons" of causing physical pain to someone. But regardless of that, terms mentioned above like "different aspects of", "research on" and "scientific findings and opinions" etc. are more encyclopedic than "pros and cons", which I think is a bit too casual term for an encyclopedia anyway. 82.181.250.242 (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For my own part, I don't have any emotional reaction to "pros and cons." I just thought it sounds odd and doesn't quite seem to convey the content of the section.Legitimus (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Alarics, irrespective of this alleged bias inherent in calling the section "pros and cons", don't you think that name for that section is a bit inept? Wouldn't "scientific research" or something be more descriptive at least, regardless of whether it's "more neutral" or not? Gabbe (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if "Pros and cons" is too colloquial, let us call is "Arguments for and against parental spanking". Or maybe just "Differing views about parental spanking". "Scientific research" is too narrow; it should be about opposing opinions in general society as well. -- Alarics (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've renamed it "Differing views about parental spanking". On reflection, "pros and cons" and "for and against" are both too binary: there is actually a wide spectrum of views. -- Alarics (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Study

The recent removal of the news article referencing the New Zealand study by Jane Millichamp, then revert[2] brought this to my attention. Well, Millichamp, you magnificent bastard, I read your study. (ahem, pardon that) The study was published in 2006 in the New Zealand Medical Journal, titled "On the receiving end: young adults describe their parents’ use of physical punishment and other disciplinary measures during childhood."[3] So we do actually have a peer-reviewed publication to use as a reference. But here's the kicker: the news article was written before the study was completed and had been properly analyzed. When finished, the study does not support the assertion. It contains virtually no conclusions regarding the outcomes of the subjects and whether they suffered harm or other distress. Rather, the study is about patterns of parental punishment on the whole. While certainly having merit, the news article is badly overstating things, likely as a result of political matters at the time.

I don't mean to condemn all news sources as unreliable, but this is not the first time a mainstream news source has badly reported on research findings (even in this article). It is a big problem so just be wary.Legitimus (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Also, see WP:MEDRS#Popular press, for example. Gabbe (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream news sources -- and not always only the "popular" press -- are (in my experience) often quite poor at reporting almost anything faintly technical or specialised, not just scientific/medical items. It's a little surprising in the present case, when the story comes direct from a respectable press agency that one ought to be able to rely on not to put a spin on things. I thought removing the paragraph just because it wasn't from a peer-reviewed journal was quite wrong, but if you now have further information that casts the matter in a different light, please add it to the article (if you are absolutely sure it is talking about the same study). -- Alarics (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes I'd agree that removal just because it is a news source is not proper, that merely was the trigger that caught my attention to seek out the real study. And yes I am certain this is the same study. I will provide a ref and rephrase.Legitimus (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

US Law: Consequences other than judicial

I was reading a handful of cases from American courts that dealt with the subject of what is and is not child abuse. Based on information mentioned in these cases, tt occurred to me that several states have consequences a parent may be subjected to for using certain levels of corporal punishment, but that they do not involved outright criminal prosecution. What I'm saying is, it appears that even where CP is not illegal in the US, there are circumstances where the parent can be still be punished by Social Services (or the equivalent public agency). So far, I've seen that they can be warned by Social Services, have their name put into a database of "child abusers", have children taken in for medical care against the wishes of the parent, and I think some jurisdiction actually allow the child to be taken away from the parent, even if the parent is not subjected to criminal prosecution. Can anyone provide more information on this?Legitimus (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence certainly suggests that that is what many people think. However, there have been some court cases that have gone the other way, upholding the parents against the social workers or similar authorities, like this one and this one and this one. But you're probably right that it's not just a question for the criminal law alone. For some people there is a real political issue here about why social services bureaucrats seem to have the right to unilaterally interfere without apparently any due process. -- Alarics (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it goes beyond simple anecdotal evidence. The cases that make it to court for some kind of judicial review generally find in the parent's favor, and those are the ones that the news pick up. But there are are also non-criminal regulations set down in law that allow actions without court order. It's not necessarily depriving of due process either. For example, if there are cockroaches in a restaurant kitchen, the health department doesn't need to call the police or have an order by a judge to shut a restaurant down. In one state, the department of social services may conduct its own investigations and has authority to (at least) flag people's names whom they identify as having committing child abuse [4]. This matter came up in some case that escapes me where a mother punched her 13 year old in the back of the head with a closed fist for being "bein' smart" but unintentionally got his eye when he turned around.Legitimus (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wall of text?

I think recent edits by 188.25.170.205 (talk) go against WP:NOT#STATS. See WP:TLDR. Gabbe (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It takes up far too much space and is of little educational value. Is this a cut and paste from somewhere? Because much of this isn't sourced.

I have two specific points to raise for each of these sections as well. For the individual state laws, there almost useless because nearly all state laws on corporal punishment are vague and subject to wide interpretation. The average reader will not come away from reading these with anything useful. For public opinion, science should come first and the whim of the masses second, and therefore such things should be kept to a bare minimum.Legitimus (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "whim of the masses" is an appropriate description. You sound as if you think "science" is cast-iron. But this is not a subject like chemistry where you can do empirical experiments. In fact some "research" is very dubious. Have a look at this article in the Wall Street Journal. -- Alarics (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my choice of words was inappropriate, but just because something is popular and accepted does not make it right. After all, it was once widely accepted to own a person as property here because of their skin color too.

Similarly, if discussions here and elsewhere have taught me anything, it is go deep to the source when looking at a news article reporting on science (such as our prior exchange about New Zealand). In the case of your Wall Street Journal article, that would be this:

• Berlin, LJ.; Ispa, JM.; Fine, MA.; Malone, PS.; Brooks-Gunn, J.; Brady-Smith, C.; Ayoub, C.; Bai, Y. "Correlates and consequences of spanking and verbal punishment for low-income white, african american, and mexican american toddlers". Child Dev. 80 (5): 1403–20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01341.x. PMID 19765008. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)

Legitimus (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanking leads to more successful children?

I suppose there will be better links soon but I thought I'd get the ball rolling:

"Children who are smacked when young are more likely to be successful, study finds", (Daily) Mail Online, 3 Jan 2010

The article reports on a study by Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, involving interviews with 2,600 people. The teenagers who had been spanked when young were doing marginally better in almost all of the measures tested: academic work, volunteer work, college aspirations, hope for the future, and confidence in their ability to earn a living as adults. "The claims made for not spanking children failed to hold up," Gunnoe said. "They are not consistent with the data." --71.174.161.38 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the Mail is referring to the Portraits of American Life Study, which has yet to be published in any peer-reviewed journal. As shown in the "New Zealand study" thread above, newspaper reports about studies don't always match up with what the studies actually find. Gabbe (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Dr. Gunnoe was collaborating with the University of Notre Dame on adding an "adolescent component" to the PALS study as seen at the bottom of this page on this Calvin Center for Social Research website. It was covered in more detail here, as well as in The New York Times—in 1997! How's that for a cutting-edge psychology reference! --71.174.163.24 (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. The 1997 study is probably

Gunnoe ML, Mariner CL (1997). "Toward a developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental spanking on children's aggression". Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 151 (8): 768–75. PMID 9265877. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Its findings doesn't seem to have made much impact on the scientific community (see the position papers listed in the article). Among other things Gunnoe's paper was criticsed for conflating correlation and causation, see for example:

Miller TQ (1998). "Drawing conclusions about temporal order". Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 152 (3): 305–6, author reply 306–9. PMID 9529476. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I think we should stick with the recommendations at WP:MEDRS (like WP:MEDASSESS) when dealing with medical effects of corporal punishment. Gabbe (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Given what happened with the Millichamp study, I'd agree let's leave it out. 71.174.161.38 just to fill you in, Millichamp "bragged" to the press about here study's conclusions before it had even been formally analyzed and gone through peer review. Not only did this indicate bias on the investigator's part, but ultimately her study failed to support these conclusions in it's final product.Legitimus (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of web references to this news story now, many quoting the Daily Mail, though the original source seems to be this 30 Dec 2009 story from the Newsweek "NurtureShock" blog, supporting the book on parenting with that title by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman. No mention in the blog entry of any supporting academic publication by Prof. Gunnoe. --96.233.95.188 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Women

This article is only about abusing kids, but historically, men were also permitted to abuse wives and personnel; in some parts of the world they still are or at least it still happens. Unfortunately, this is not addressed by the article. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 20:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about "abusing kids", it's about corporal punishment in the home. Don't introduce your own POV. Anyway, your point about women is covered by a section of that title in the article Spanking. Alarics (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the talk-page, NPOV applies to the article namespace, not to the talk namespace. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 21:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue." WP:TALK

"Recognize your own biases, and keep them in check." WP:EQ Alarics (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with the original poster. Domestic violence and/or spanking is not the same as the historical right of a husbond to physically punish his wife(+ child and staff) in his own home, if she had misbehaved.94.145.236.194 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Split pros and cons

• This section is in the wrong place. It is a section that belongs to the main corporal punishment article as a Main article redirect from its Pros and cons of corporal punishment section. None of the arguments are specific to the home as they also apply to school.
• It is the right length for an article.
• It is a specific topic that readers be will looking to read particularly in terms of different pro and con sides of the argument
• A separate article would allow better structure--at present it is not easily read because it lacks subheadings. for example it could be divided up into

Pro arguments

Con arguments

Relevant resesarch

official policy statements

Alternatives

--LittleHow (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the split in principle, but what should the new article be called? Also, the split has to be handled carefully to avoid making it a content fork. Gabbe (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The usual wording for pro and cons articles seems to use the word debate such as Abortion debate, Capital punishment debate, and Nuclear power debate. The existence of these articles suggests that content forking is not a problem though issues of NPOV might--LittleHow (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "Corporal punishment debate" seems like a good new name. And just as you say, the mere splitting does not necessarily constitute a fork, but rather how the split is conducted. As long as we replace the old section(s) with a summary of the new "corporal punishment debate" article I think we should be alright. Gabbe (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see much problem here since this involves writing brief summaries. The problems seem to me to lie in organizing this long section in way that respects pro and con arguments so that both sides of this issue feel it reads with a NPOV.--LittleHow (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"None of the arguments are specific to the home as they also apply to school." Wrong, all the contested research is about parental/domestic corporal punishment. The history of arguments over school corporal punishment is altogether a different subject, and one which I am proposing to develop as I look into the sources. I therefore oppose the suggestion that the "pro and con" section ought to be split off. Alarics (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read through this section, it is all about parental punishment. The issues in school corporal punishment are not the same at all. One of the main reasons why we created these different subarticles for corporal punishment (school, parental, judicial) was precisely because they are different enough from each other to require to be discussed separately. For instance, most of the debate and the research around parental/domestic corporal punishment has to do with mothers spanking toddlers and quite young children, often on the spur of the moment, in a context of debate about parenting styles and the nature of mother-child relationships. This has very little in common with much school paddling in the USA or school caning in Singapore, for instance, which is more often than not of teenagers in high school (the offenders concerned can be aged up to 19) and tends to be reserved for specific, relatively serious violations of a published set of rules, typically carried out with a certain amount of due process and in a much more formal manner than a parental spanking is likely to be. So if you want to float this section off into an article of its own, it must be clearly named something like "Pros and cons of parental spanking" to distinguish it from discussion of the arguments for and against school corporal punishment, which will be a section in the "School corporal punishment" article. In fact I am going to rename the section in question now. Alarics (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point! You'll find that many online screeds regarding the raising of children pair spanking with sex abuse in every sentence! This trick throws any intelligent, rational discussion out the window, leaving the websites to die a natural death without helping anyone! 24.7.123.231 (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Some references have no title of book and so on. For instance, see ref. 31. Why? --89.12.57.54 (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess the simple answer is "because the article is a horrible mess". It looks like the first item in what is currently reference 31, is actually talking about the book cited in reference 33. Given the number of references, what this article should have is a "Bibliography" section underneath the references, listing each cited work in full detail, and then the references could just list author name and year. Take a look at some of Wikipedia's featured content to see what I mean. Maybe this article once did have such a section, and that's why that reference looks strange. You can check that in the article history. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, this article has never had such a section since I created it, but I agree it would be useful. I had noticed the inadequacy of reference 31 and have been meaning, when I find time, to look into that particular claim and source it properly if it stands up. As for the article being a mess, User:Gabbe and I have I think been the only editors who have made much of a consistent effort with it, and certainly it could be improved. Unfortunately it is one of those articles where one spends too much time firefighting against POV additions, often from IP addresses. -- Alarics (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't suggesting that your re-organisation of the articles had created the messy problems, or contributed to them. I do see how having articles where there is a large volume of incoming problematic material, but a very small number of editors working to deal with it and improve the article, can make it extremely difficult to improve a set of articles, or even maintain their quality. Schools articles on Wikipedia are an example of this, although for slightly different reasons. I was amazed to find that, although individual famous British public schools each have moderately respectable articles, there is not even an article on British public schools. In fact the only coverage of British public schools as a group (and separately from British independent schools, which essentially includes every private school in the country), is a single extremely short paragraph! This is quite amazing given the massive coverage of the concept and grouping, in just about every possible secondary source from the late 19th century onwards. But I digress :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Real world scenarios

All children -- 100% -- recall being smacked or spanked at one time or another, and the buttocks are the most harmless place to whack an out-of-contol child. (Parents tend to not recall hitting their kids!) Where's the Swedish Police Study that shows a soaring rate of violence aimed at parents by children since that silly law was passed? Why isn't the emotional pain of a time-out or the removal of a favorite toy ever discussed? Spanking is quick and effective with children who respond well to it. We never spanked our daughter, but when our 12-year-old son went into a downward spiral behaviorally, my husband gave him a rare spanking and he was cheerful for weeks! it was as though he knew now that someone cared enough to control him when he couldn't control himself. We know him better than any anti-discipline freak out there, and it would have been abusive not to use authoritative fathering when he needed a father's control. I feel sorry for those poor children who spend their childhoods in "litigation" with their parents over when the video game comes back down from the attic. We need to trust our own caring instincts more.24.7.123.231 (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. However, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss specific improvements to the article. It is not a discussion forum on the general topic of spanking, see WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM. With that in mind, do you have any sourced improvements to the article you would like to discuss? For example, do you have a link to this "Swedish Police Study" you mention? Gabbe (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

True, this wont be able to go on the article unless it is verified. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Spanking vs CP

This article talks about them as if they were one and the same. For me, "spanking" and "slapping" always meant the use of the hand to cause minor pain to the butt or hand, respectively, but "corporal punishment" meant the use of a belt/cane/whip or hitting more sensitive areas, like the back, private area, or face, to cause more severe pain. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a great difference between minor and severe pain, yet all infliction of pain for disciplinary reasons is corporal punishment. Lova Falk talk 07:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Spanking is, strictly speaking, a subset of corporal punishment. In other words, all spanking (when done as punishment, rather than for fun) is corporal punishment, but not all corporal punishment is spanking. Furthermore (as the separate article on Spanking makes clear), the word "spanking" means slightly different things in British and American English. In UK-speak, spanking has generally meant punishment only with the open hand. English school caning, for instance, would never have been described as spanking. But in North America the word is often used to include the use of an implement, especially in relation to paddling at school.

Anyway, I don't see any problem with this article. It mentions punishment with an implement where relevant, but in practice most domestic CP, in the modern era at least, is spanking without an implement. -- Alarics (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am American. I have always thought that the belting forms of CP were illegal. Are they not? Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That is an entirely different question. The answer to it depends on which jurisdiction you are talking about. In the USA mainly not, but different states have different laws. In the UK probably yes under the latest prosecution guidelines, though it is not spelled out in the legislation in those terms. -- Alarics (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The term "corporal punishment" is categorically the most broad, general term. It means "A form of punishment achieved by inflicting blows to the offender's body." Actually Ticklewickleukulele is the first person I have ever heard stating they thought it only referred to abusive and/or unlawful physical punishment.

I can say that very few types of CP are illegal in the US in explicit terms. Each of the 50 states has different laws on it, but all of them are very vague, with no specific practices named as prohibited. I know for a fact several cases of belting or striking with a wooden spoon, or an electrical cord have been ruled legal when challenged within the justice system. Most cases that seem to come into the attention of authorities involve lacerations to the skin, broken bones or visible hematomas.Legitimus (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. About an electrical cord, Was the parent just using it as a whip, or was there power running through it to shock the child? Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As a whip. The child was an 8 year old boy. He had red welts and some cutaneous bruising on his hands, arms, legs, back and buttocks. Social Services got involved, but the administrative judge ruled it was within the bounds of "reasonable punishment" allowed by law because his head was not struck. (Case: Appellant v. Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services, 2009). Granted, this specific case was held up in the state legislature to promote a bill that was trying to address the problem of clearly abusive behavior like this being allowed due to the overly vague abuse laws, but the bill did not pass.Legitimus (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

US map shown should be revised to show Delaware in green because of 2012 change in Delaware child law.

In 2012 Delaware became the first state to adopt the emerging nonviolent European model and pass a statute defining “physical injury” to a child to include "any impairment of physical condition or pain."[15]

[15] "DELAWARE STATE SENATE 146th GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SENATE BILL NO. 234, AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 11 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO OFFENSES AGAINST CHILDREN.

"Amending Chapter 5, Title 11 of the Delaware Code by redesignating Section 1100 of Chapter 5, Title 11 as Section 1100A of Chapter 5, Title 11 and further by redesignating current Section 1103 of Chapter 5, Title 11 as Section 1100, of Chapter 5, Title 11, and by further amending the current language of that section ...

This act amends Chapter 5 §1100 to provide as follows:

Definitions relating to children:

When used in this subchapter:

...

(j) “Physical injury” to a child shall mean any impairment of physical condition or pain.

I have no problems in adding reference to Delaware, or changing the map. "Emerging European model" is definitely POV, however. StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Cognitive Dissonance bias

I feel that the recently added bit on cognitive dissonance is very biased. If nobody else thinks so, I still think it should be reworded at the very least as it is incredibly poorly written, and looks more like a rant than information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.173.102 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is not NPOV. It is also disproportionately long for what appears to be a rather marginal theory. I favour deleting it altogether. -- Alarics (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-writing it to about half the length would be better than getting rid of it. I'm not at all convinced that it's especially more marginal as a theory than any of the other material. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What can I say, I'm a better subject matter expert than writer. Did the best I could, and I'm not opposed to someone rephrasing it so long as the overall meaning is not subverted. Definitely not a marginal theory either as I used a neutral university textbook and a book by a respected psychologist as sources. I had a feeling the info was going to ruffle some feathers of course (the feathers of the very birds the paragraph is talking about), but I had to give it a try.Legitimus (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Delaware

I'm removing the paragraph about Delaware, because it appears that there still is the common law exemption from parents being prosecuted for corporal punishment.

According to this: [5]"But one of the bill's biggest proponents, Attorney General Beau Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden, has been adamant that spanking isn't the target of the law. "This will not do anything to interfere with a parent's right or ability to parent as they see fit, but it also makes it clear that if you abuse a child in any way, shape or form, we're going to have a statute that we're going to be able to use to protect kids," he stated."2A02:2F0A:500F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9E1F (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There can't be a common law exception for a statute that's never been tested in court. Biden's remark is little more that political maneuvering to avoid angering voters. The fact of the matter is we don't know what the actual effect will be until a test case occurs.Legitimus (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that if statutory legislation wants to abolish a specific common law rule/defense/offense etc (in this case the common law right of parents to use "reasonable force" to discipline children, which can constitute a defense to a charge of assault or other such crimes), it has to explicitly say so - say that the specific defense is abolished. Otherwise, the common law rule remains in force until/unless it is abolished by the court (the common law evolves itself).

Explicit statutory abolition of common law rules is common. Here is an example of such statutory abolition:[6]

Sec. 52-557d. Defense of charitable immunity abolished.

Sec. 52-557d. Defense of charitable immunity abolished. The common law defense of charitable immunity is abolished and shall not constitute a valid defense to any cause of action.

(1967, P.A. 52; P.A. 82-160, S. 225.)2A02:2F0A:500F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1B03 (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. This goes beyond my understanding of law, but that is useful to know. Is this common law "parent's right to use reasonable force" rule set down somewhere? Is it applicable to the whole US or just Delaware?Legitimus (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm not a legal expert, but here is my take. First, about the paragraph on Delaware, I removed it from this article, because it stated that "Delaware passed a statute defining “physical injury” to a child to include "any impairment of physical condition or pain." Because corporal punishment by definition is the intentional infliction of pain, this law made Delaware the first state in the US to ban it entirely." It quoted absolutely no source for this claim, only linked to a bill. When I first saw the paragraph, I thought, well, simply passing such a statute, by itself, does not ban corporal punishment in the home, because, unless you've done something to deal with the common law, just by passing a new law banning such acts you don't automatically ban CP in the home. I did some quick research and found that there were some media and other online claims that CP was banned, but no reliable source was cited for this, and, together with the denial from Attorney General Beau Biden, made such an assertion questionable, so I removed the claim, as it is WP:OR, and likely incorrect. Now to come back to the common law - English common law, which was later exported to British colonies, always uphold the right of parents to use CP. The United States law system developed mostly from English common law (major exception - law of Louisiana that tends to be primarily based on French and Spanish codes and Roman law). The right of parents to use CP has always been recognized by US courts. Many states have gone to codify this right into statutory laws. This brings us back to Delaware. I actually got more interested in this and I went on to see if Delaware had it codified in its statutory laws. If you want to get rid of a traditional common law principle you have to do something: either remove it (say x common law rule is abolished), or say something explicit (x is illegal/ eg. it is illegal for parents to use any force). I think that if you had actually codified the principle in statutory law, abolishing that codified statutory principle is sufficient. So I actually went on to see what does statutory law say in Delaware, and found that it actually does have such an exemption codified in statutory law, see:[[7]] Now I went on too see what Bill no. 234[8] that was linked to says, and, correct me if I misunderstand it, but it actually deals with force that is not "justifiable", it says "(a) "Abuse" means causing any physical injury to a child through unjustified force as defined in §468(1)(c). Actually, §468(1)(c) deals with unjustified force, unlike §468(1)(a) and §468(1)(b) that deal with force that is justified[9] !! Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the bill, but I cannot see how it can be constructed to ban CP.

Now all this is irrelevant and my own WP:OR, and I am by no means saying that anything from what I said above should be included in the article; what I'm saying is that a claim that "CP is illegal in Delaware" should not be included in this article, because it is unsourced and likely untrue.2A02:2F0A:500F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1B03 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The common law part still puzzles me a bit (I just don't get how a law can just "exist" without being written down in some way), but with the bill I'm following you now. Summing it up from my own read based on your refs, it appears it only counts as "Abuse" under this new bill if pain is inflicted by means of the "unjustified force as defined in §468(1)(c)" which names several very specific behaviors, but does not include such acts as the use of an open hand on the buttocks. Mere infliction of pain, in and off itself, does not appear to meet the criteria.

The AG's remarks seem to make much more sense now. You know, having edited in this general area for a few years, this is certainly not the first time the press has royally screwed up in their reporting this topic. It has made me and likely many other editors very wary of news sources.Legitimus (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The press should never be trusted when it comes to legal or medical issues. Most journalists who write on these topics are not legal/medical professionals, and this, coupled with the huge level of incompetence among the media people, leads to disastrous results. In regard to the common law - as the article common law explains it (though that article has some serious problems) - it is the law created by judges, and not by the statutes that are on the books. It "exists" because it is codified through the decisions of courts. Historically, it was of major importance, since judges made most of the laws through court cases, and improvised as they wished on existing statutory law, but today it has much less importance. To give you an example, a statutory defense in regard to CP would be where the law on the books says "it is a defense to the offense of assault that the accused was the parent and ....". A common law defense would be where law that you see on the books (in the statutes) does not say that, but judges have ruled in the past that there is such as defense (ie. the judges have stated in court decisions that the offense of assault does not apply when parent uses "reasonable" force). If there is such a common law defense, it exists until either it evolves at common law (the judges abolish it through new precedents) or the statutory law abolishes it (by saying that this specific common law defense is abolished, or otherwise saying something on the lines "it is illegal for a parent to use physical discipline"). 2A02:2F0A:500F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1B03 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Child welfare opinions

I have added a small paragraph at the end of the section views on corporal punishment. Many people have different opinions on what kind of punishments are legal and illegal so child welfare carefully makes a decision to either leave or take away the child from an abusive environment without causing psychological damage to the child. I thought that adding in this information will benefit this section because it show how the government and society does actually try to protect children from abuse and defend the rights of the family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agherr (talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have undone this edit, but please don't be disheartened. This is due to POV words and unsourced claims on the statement, both of which are relatively easy to remedy. For instance, you say 'Many people' but many doesn't indicate any discernable figures or give any significant understanding of numbers. The same is true for the statement 'some child welfare experts'. Please fix these minor points.Justin.Parallax (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Second what Justin.Parallax stated. This sounds like a logical thing, but needs better sourcing and phrasing. Of note is the remark "different opinions on what kind of punishments are legal and illegal." Opinions of what is illegal don't matter. That would be like saying "In my opinion, driving drunk isn't illegal, so I'm going to do it now." I don't think the police will buy that argument. Unless you're intended meaning was "opinions on what should be legal or illegal."Legitimus (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Some version of the text added might fit better in Wikipedia's article child abuse in the "Prevention" section. "Child abuse" is what the source used is talking about - there's no reason to think the commentary is only about violent forms of abuse. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Demiurge, it belongs in the Child abuse article, not here. -- Alarics (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The maps

The first map in the article is about school punishment, nothing to do with the subject of this article. Could someone who knows how to edit maps please remove it? Also, in the second map there now seem to be no European countries where school c.p. is allowed, so the red box in the legend needs to be removed. -- Alarics (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Psychotraumatological effects of physical child abuse

Many psychological studies have shown that severe physical abuse can have psychotraumatological effects that can be compared to those of sexual child abuse. Whereas sexual abuse is - for a very good reason - comdemned in almost any Western society, physical abuse is still widely accepted in many countries, as children are often not regarded as citizens with human rights, but as the legal property of their parents (or even their teachers). Nevertheless, in many European contries the sensitivity towards this issue has risen a lot during the recent decades. If parents really mistreat their children by severely beating them (or even by emotionally abusing them in a very sadistic way), the kids will be taken away from their parents in order to protect them from developping a severe trauma. Of course, no one will take your children away from you, if you once gave them a slap in the face because you lost control (although this is illegal, too, and will often be discussed if it happens). I live in Germany, and to us it sounds unbeleivable that children may legally be beaten even at school - in almost half of the US-American states, and even in France (what I did not know). Using things such as belts makes it even more sadistic and traumatizing. In Germany, no one could slap their kids in public (except in some very rural areas) without provoking the severe protest of bystanders (or even provoking that people inform the "Jugendamt" - a part of the ministry for family matters). The real difference between physical and sexual child abuse refers much more to the different perception and evaluation in society (similarly in the USA and in Europe): The objetively measurable psychological effetcts it may have on children are much more similar than many people might (want to) believe. (And of course, in both cases it depends on the degree of brutality and violence.) As a victim of severe physical and emotional child abuse, and after years of psychotherapy, I know what I am talking about. Physical child abuse is absolutely trivialized - obviously even more in the USA than in Western Europe. If one considers that sex between an 18 and a 17 year old is considered to be a sexual crime in many American states, but severe and sadistic forms of real (physical) child abuse are often enough considered to be OK or "POV", then one could ask the question what this tells us about American society (and maybe in a lower degree about Western societies in general). Maybe, a big part of the criminalization of harmless sexual experiences (that are mistaken as abuse) are a result of what psychoanalysts call "projection": People tend to blame others for their own failures that they refuse to see: Severely harming the psychological health of another person. That does - of course - not mean that one should ignore or trivialize real sexual abuse - but inventing sexual abuse, where it does not exist at all, and almost completely ignoring physical abuse instead, won't help any of the victims - it only helps the physical abusers to prevent themselves from asking too many disturbing questions that could harm their self-esteem and their feeling of being morally good. Many Europeans, especially psychologists and sociologists, claim to see such tendencies in the USA - which is of course just a "point of view" - a point of view from a different culture. 77.24.183.249 (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Talk page of a Wikipedia article is not meant for debate about the subject itself, only for discussing improving the article to which it relates. All the above may be very interesting but it is does not belong here unless you are proposing a rewording of the article. If you are, please be more specific and more succinct. Alarics (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, my comment was rather subjective - sorry. I was kind of irritated when I saw that there seems to be a real controversial debate about the justification of corporal punishment (even in extreme forms). We don't have that kind of controversy here, especially corporal punishment at school is no longer a matter of discussing pros or cons since it is generally regarded as abusive. I have never heard that any psychologist had ever doubted that in the recent 30 years(although some might tend to think that the effects of a single slap in the face might be overestimated - no one would ever try to justify severe beating, since it is regarded as a severe violation of basic human rights. It seems as strange to me as if one would want to discuss if sexual activity really needs to be voluntary - it's absurd and self-explaining if you believe in basic human rights, which are widely accepted in almost any Western society).

I have read articles about several psychological or sociological studies that have shown that the traumatizing effects of severe physical or emotional abuse in childhood may be quite similar to those of sexual abuse, but are often underestimated. This is not mentioned in the article. It was German studies, though. I could link those sources, but I don't know if this would really be helpful for the English Wikipedia. Nevertheless, there should also be a number of similar studies in English, I guess. The article mentions that corporal punishment often leads to an acceptance of violence as a means of acheiving ones aims. But at no place it is described how painful and traumatizing the effects of such educational methods can really be. Or it suggests that the question whether there can be such traumatizing effects or not is a matter of political attitude - which it is not, it's a matter of proven reality that is widely accepted by the scientific community. Promoting a certain (preferred) version of reality in order to justify political or ideological attitudes is pseudo-science. Of course corporal violence is an effective means of instrumental conditioning (in Skinner's tradition) - at least when a very specific behavior shall be suppressed - but the traumatizing and violence-generating effects of CP have been proven and are NOT part of a scientific controversy. Maybe the scientific controversy refers to the question from which degree of violence on there is really a severe traumatizing effect, and there may be controversial evidence in this point. But no one who is engaged in real science (and not just pseudo-scientific promotion of political ideologies) would denie that corporal violence often has severely traumatizing effects - because it has clearly been proven and one could just as well try to discuss if two plus two really makes four. The article suggests, though, that it's a question of attitude. The fact that the traumatic effects could be proven was the reason why any form of corporal punishment (even at home and "just" a slap in the face) has been forbidden in many countries.

77.24.42.140 (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"the traumatizing and violence-generating effects of CP have been proven and are NOT part of a scientific controversy". That is much too sweeping a statement. Nothing in such a field as this is ever likely to be conclusively "proven", and academic studies disagree, so there IS a controversy, and that is reflected in the article. Wikipedia has to deal with the subject neutrally and reflect various points of view. That is what this article does. You can be as "irritated" or "surprised" as you like about the fact that not everybody agrees with you, but that is irrelevant here. This is not the place for debating the issue itself, which seems to me still to be what you are trying to do. As for "severe physical and emotional abuse", what you say is no doubt true, but most ordinary moderate corporal punishment (which is mainly what is covered here) doesn't fall into that category. There is a separate article about "child abuse". Meanwhile, the balance of quotations in this article are already heavily on the side of those who oppose CP - probably too much so, from the point of view of those who take a different view from you. Please don't add more and more of your opinions to this page - that is not what it is for. Alarics (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We are limited to English language sources. While research from Germany certainly would be useful, it needs to be accessible to us non-German speakers it order to investigate.

But really, the pro/con section doesn't seem too biased to me. Among the scientific community, the pro-spank findings are Baumrind, Larzelere and ... well that's basically it. They are opposed by, well, everyone else. The section basically speaks for itself.Legitimus (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's not my personal opinion that those traumatizing effects could be proven in almost any serious study. It's nothing new that there's always people who disagree; e.g. there are also people who (want to) believe that HIV had nothing to do with AIDS, but since there is a general consent that this is a mere belief that just claims to be scientific, the HIV and AIDS articles do of course not refer to these "studies". (Or if they do, critical comments are added, and Wikipedia mentions that these views are not accepted by the major scientific community, because the methods are regarded as pseudo-science). An encyclopadia should not mention any point of view that claims to be scientific. The only thing that is relevant is the question whether the methods really meet scientific standards. Otherwise you could also write an article about evolution and mention that some "scientists" are convinced that Earth has been created by a personal God, and evolution is a lie. Being unbiased means being objective. It does not mean writing an arcticle that is a compromise between science and (religios or political) dogma, so that noone would feel offended, or everyone feels offended to the same acceptable and inavoidable degree. There is often such a misconception of what being "unbiased" means. It really means objective facts. Of course, there can also be controversy about what the facts are, but some part of the controversy may often be due to people who refuse to accept facts. Claiming that some "softer" forms of CP do not harm psychological health, whereas other scientists claim that any form of CP harms psychological health - this may refer to a real scientific controversy. But if "scientists" claim that generally, there are no negative effects of CP, except in some very extreme cases, this contradicts tons of psychological research that they also know but want to ignore for some personal reason. I simply wonder if what I have learned in my studies during the last three years was all wrong or biased or just one side of the scientific controversy (of which I never even knew that it existed in this form). Are we learning trash or political attitudes at the University? Or are we maybe learning scientific facts (as far as there can ever be facts) and do not need to protect the feelings of large parts of the population who would feel offended by the results of research? However, if you feel that a scientific article has to be "politically balanced" to be objective or unbiased, I will no longer try to convince you that not anything that a scientist claims needs to be scientific. I have never argued that I feel that CP is wrong and therefore several claims could not be objective - this would be dogmatic thinking, of course. What makes the article biased, is, that personal opinions are presented as part of a scientific controversy, although they are opinions, since they ignore the results of tons of research. Some people (and scientists are people, too) will always refuse to accept facts because they want to believe what they have always believed, want to keep on doing what they have always done, and do not want to question their social attidues.

90.187.40.232 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The scientific evidence is nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to think. Baumrind and Lazarlere keep on publishing scientific studies (not mere personal opinions) which find the evidence that moderate, occasional spanking is harmful simply does not stand up. They are respectable scientists and we have to record their point of view, as well as that of their opponents, in a neutral encyclopaedia article. To compare them with the people who denied that HIV causes AIDS, or with religious fundamentalists who deny evolution, is absolutely ridiculous. Alarics (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I will reserve my take on Baumrind and Larzelere for another more appropriate forum.

But while where on the subject, can get a more direct ref to Baumrind's paper? It's just an NY TImes article right now. I think they are talking about "Does Causally Relevant Research Support A Blanket Injunction Against Disciplinary Spanking By Parents?" which for the record is not a peer-reviewed study, it was a talk she gave at an APA Convention. That is to say, it sounds like an opinion speech, unless I can get a hold of it and find otherwise.Legitimus (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I must admit that I misunderstood the word "spanking". English is not my mother tongue. I looked it up now. I thought spanking would refer to beating children with a spanking stick (that's the word association I had), with a belt, or with other very painful things. I had read that such practices are legal in many US states, so maybe my misconception of "scientists" claiming that "using spanking sticks" would have no traumatical effects, was due to my own prejudices. I know that there is a scientific controversy about the question if any kind of CP is harmful, and I did not want to give the impression that I regarded all that as pseudo-science by definition. I thought "spanking" meant beating somebody with a (spanking) stick.

90.187.40.232 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Legitimus: the main Baumrind paper is (see footnote 37) Baumrind, Diana (October 1996). "A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of spanking is not warranted by the data". Pediatrics 98 (4 Pt 2): 828–31. PMID 8885981. Unfortunately it requires a fee to view it on line. There is also a much more recent Baumrind/Larzalere paper, rubbishing the 2002 Gershoff meta-survey, which we ought to include. I will try to find it. Alarics (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Luckily I can access it in full. But if that's right, then why is the NY Times article from 2001? It took them 5 years to pick up the story? It can't be referring to the recent (2002) one because that was after this article was published.Legitimus (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There was maybe another one in between, referred to in the NY Times article. You are welcome to try to find it. Alarics (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

90.187.40.232, thats quite alright. Corporal Punishment is the broad overall term. "Spanking" in common parlance itself includes both using an object and using the empty open hand. In the case of the work done by Larzelere and Baumrind (the scientists that support spanking) they define it specifically as "striking the child on the buttocks or extremities with an open hand without inflicting physical injury with the intention to modify behavior." This definition is made with the idea to exclude abusive behavior. You may also note that this excludes the use of any object to strike a child. This is quite different than the religious/dogmatic pro-CP voices who often feel it is right to strike a child with a slender stick ("rod" or "switch") or paddle on bare skin. This is allowed under US law, but there is little to no support for the practice in psychology to my knowledge.

Regarding Baumrind's work, fortunately, I was able to dig up my old copy of talk she gave at the APA conference, and it would appear this is indeed what NYT was quoting as "findings". The paper is dated August 24, 2001, the day of the conference. The NYT article is the very next day, August 25. And Straus was commenting on the talk (point out the flaws) on August 27, 2001. I'm not saying toss the thing per se, but this is technically isn't a "published study" with peer-review even if NYT makes it sound that way. This is not at all unusual for American news sources to do. I am constantly finding stories that improperly represent peer-reviewed research when I read newspapers.

In addition to this, I took time to read her earlier 1996 paper from Pediatrics. It is a "response" paper (that is, a comment on other people's research, specifically Larzelere's)and also not technically a study. Baumrind carries a great deal of respect in the practice for her research on parenthood, much of which is very good. But these papers are in effect, little more than a rendering of an opinion much like a judge in a US Appeals Court.Legitimus (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

130.195.123.104 (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Hi there, I wanted to list an agency under the list of agencies for the US as being opposed to corporal punishment, but unfortunately the link appears to have been blocked. The author equated physical assault (e.g. forcefully smacking an adult's bottom without their consent) against a young person by an adult as a form of sexual harassment, perhaps even assault (e.g. softly smacking an adult's bottom without their consent). Well, potentially it is a point, but I personally don't think so.

Considering that at least 30% of all child sexual abusers are family members of the young person, and that those family members who were parents were entitled to forcefully smack that young person's bottom WITHOUT their consent, that is potentially a reasonable comparison, if for instance the parent was fulfilling a sadomasochistic fantasy (i.e. committing thought crime). But then again, perhaps it isn't. I'm so confused (I might I suffered minor brain damage as a minor):

In any case, the rational thing to do would be for the admin of this article to ask for the organisation's website to be removed from the blacklist. I would theorise that the only reason you would need to censor such material, is because you are afraid that they have a point. The article was How Much Do You Know About Corporal Punishment? Because the link is blacklisted, I'm afraid you'll have to Google it instead.

130.195.123.104 (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch (PAW)? They should have this article locked up and uneditable as well, duh...

I'm sure it's not to do with censorship or "being afraid that they have a point". I don't know anything about this particular case, but normally if a source is blocked from inclusion in Wikipedia, it will be because a consensus has been reached that it is not a WP:Reliable source. -- Alarics (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I added additional information on the effects of child abuse and how it can affect their future in the views of corporal punishment section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agherr (talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Recentism

The article begins as follows:

Domestic corporal punishment or corporal punishment in the home may also be described as parental corporal punishment. It involves a spanking or slapping administered to a child by a parent or guardian, typically with the parent's open hand but sometimes with an implement such as a cane, slipper or paddle.

This is a recentist view. Historically the authority to use physical violence as a means of punishment in the home was not limited to parent-upon-child violence; it also included husband-upon-wife violence. Although that is today considered a different category of behavior in the West today, ("domestic violence" or "wife beating"), historically both descend from the authority of the "man of the house" to use violence to maintain "discipline". For examples from other cultures see also, e.g., Islam and domestic violence. --FOo (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you really think that, your proper course would be to add a sentence or two to that effect (with citations) to the article. But the point is already effectively covered in Spanking, which is where I think people would more expect to find it. I don't really it think it belongs in this context but I suppose it all depends what you mean by recent.

By the way, you betray your bias on this subject by describing corporal punishment as "parent-upon-child violence". The idea that an ordinary moderate spanking can be equated with "violence" is very much a minority view. Alarics (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is already a comprehensive and well-sourced article called Domestic violence (to which "wife-beating" redirects) which is primarily about violence between spouses, and does cover your Islam point. I think it just muddies the waters to bring that issue into "Corporal punishment in the home" which is well understood as something quite different. Alarics (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In a former time, the activity which is today called "wife-beating" was considered to be a form of "punishment" -- that is, a proper exercise of authority to impose discipline. What is today considered a wrongful and criminal exercise of rage or machismo was then considered to be a wholly appropriate use of authority; a man who would not discipline his scolding or otherwise misbehaving wife was considered to be henpecked, and ultimately to be less than a man.

My point above is not to damn modern "corporal punishment" or, for that matter, to praise wife-beating. To the contrary: my point is to assert that the two activities are cut of one cloth; are of common cultural and social origin. The notion that the strong must impose discipline upon the weak, the elder upon the younger, the male upon the female -- meeting rebellion with violence, is a common thread throughout human history. You can like it and follow it, or hate it and try to reform it; but to deny it is simply ignorant. --FOo (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute your general point as regards the background cultural history. But in those former times, was what we now call "wife-beating" or "domestic violence" ever referred to as "corporal punishment"? If not, I don't see why we have to mention it in an article called "corporal punishment in the home". Anyway, as I said before, if you disagree, nobody is stopping you from adding a sentence to the article accordingly, with a link to Domestic violence. Alarics (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Corporal punishment in the home is also the use of physical force for the purpose of correction or control of behavior and to show authority between parent/guardian and child. The first paragraph of Domestic Corporal Punishment could use this information because it tells why people would choose to practice corporal punishment in their homes. This will also help the readers get a more general idea of what corporal punishment really is instead of just being introduced that it involves spanking and slapping a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agherr (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No. The previous wording said "what corporal punishment really is". You have now introduced a speculative and POV extra layer of verbiage which just muddies the water. And a source entitled "Corporal punishment is ineffective and abusive" clearly is not an objective source. -- Alarics (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the information I added above was biased. I think that it actually adds more clarity to the introduction of what domestic corporal punishment is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agherr (talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Citations

I removed the section "This is commonly expressed as 'I spanked my children and they all turned out fine' or 'I was spanked and I turned out fine.'" because the given citation never claims these remarks ("I turned out fine...") are "commonly" expressed, nor does it state that they arise from denial/cognitive dissonance. I removed the parenthetical assertion, "The fatal flaw... often relying on unreliable or irrelevant measures (such as financial or academic success)." Nearly every society/people -- yes, even Americans -- strive for "financial or academic success" -- so the implication that they are "irrelevant" measures is absurd. And once again, I didn't see the citation say anything about them being "a fatal flaw" or being an "irrelevant" measure.

Also, one of the citations -- progressive-parenting.com -- seems like an unreliable source; it's non-academic and self-published. I removed it, but perhaps someone can give arguments to reinstate it. Eyeofpie 07:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have broken several URLs in the article and on this talk page, rendering them unusable while leaving the remainder of the cite. I don't know what you motive for doing so is, but this appears to have been intentional to subvert sources you don't agree with. You may try your edit described above again, but be advised that a record of every character you change is recorded by the system.Legitimus (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)