Talk:Spanking paddle/Archive 1

Archive 1

"heightening the humiliation factor of having to receive the paddling dressed down or even bare bottom (nearly exclusively in private run schools, however). " - what schools currently do this? Names would be helpful. I don't believe it takes place. -unknown

Yes; much is said about its "current" use... -anonymous

"The ordeal does by meth" - This fragment makes no sense. -Sarten-X 06:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Racism, Sexism?

TFA: Statistics show that black and Hispanic students are more likely to be paddled than white students, possibly because minority-race parents are more inclined to approve of it.

HOW is this not a RACIST statement? This can be taken as "blacks and Hispanics sure do like to beat their kids!" Does this seem fair? (i.e. let's compare social class vs. "inclination to approve" of corporal punishments and I'd bet we'd see a similar measure.)

MFTA: Male students receive about 75 to 85% of all corporal punishment, probably because male students commit more offenses (they also tend to receive the majority proportion of other kinds of punishments, so it is not necessarily a case of gender discrimination in the treatment of equivalent misbehavior).

HOW is this not a SEXIST statement? This can be taken as "it's always the BOY's fault!" Does this really seem honest? (i.e. perhaps school disciplinarians are more lenient on female students?)

Either way, TFA seems poorly researched ('Journal of Negro Education', can't we get a more objective source?) and any mention of the disparities between gender/race seems poorly documented, if not downright biased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.241.241 (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, boys have always been more troublesome than girls, ever since the dawn of time. So they get punished more (by whatever form of punishment may be in place). Just a statement of fact - nothing to do with sexism, and not very much to do with paddling either.Alarics (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion in the editing process

Here's a copy of part of the history page:

1. (cur) (last) 03:31, 17 November 2006 Coppertwig (Talk | contribs) (BruceDLimber was not the vandal! Attempted to restore BruceDLimber's recnet edits)
2. (cur) (last) 02:56, 17 November 2006 67.142.130.13 (Talk) (I removed what appeared to be a statement by a highschooler that he would love to be paddled, and asked for someone to do so if anyone was to see him at his High School in New York.)
3. (cur) (last) 14:49, 16 November 2006 790 (Talk | contribs) (revert vandalism by user:BruceDLimber)
4. (cur) (last) 21:32, 9 November 2006 BruceDLimber (Talk | contribs) (?Social discipline)
5. (cur) (last) 21:25, 9 November 2006 BruceDLimber (Talk | contribs) (?Types and terms)
6. (cur) (last) 21:20, 9 November 2006 BruceDLimber (Talk | contribs)
7. (cur) (last) 17:37, 9 November 2006 168.169.120.93 (Talk)

I believe the user who said "revert vandalism by user:BruceDLimber" actually intended to remove the material which was already present before BruceDLimber began editing. However, the material which was intended to be removed was still there, and was later removed by 67.142.130.13. I then edited the most recent version and re-typed in by hand (without mistakes I hope) the same edits that BruceDLimber had done, creating a new version not previously existing which did not contain the material about the high school in New York but which did contain BruceDLimber's edits (which were minor changes in wording and links here and there). --Coppertwig 03:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I may not have described that quite right. User 790, claiming to be reverting "vandalism" by BruceDLimber, may have actually re-inserted the high school stuff that BruceDLimber deleted (I think) as well as deleting BruceDLimber's several small edits throughout the text. Also, in attempting to fix the whole thing, I may have accidentally added the word "rarer" thinking BruceDLimber had added it. I think I'm going to try again, reverting to BruceDLimber's version. --Coppertwig 03:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

---

What's that about naming the paddle "ass-burner, butt-buster" ?? Is there any reference for this? Or better said, I think that part of the article is "un-encyclopedical". -anoynomous

Columbia Military Academy

I question the use of this as an example as it is listed as a defunct Military Academy, hopefully a better example can be found. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

schools "Mainly in the south" use corporal punishment

Alarics seems to have been trying to get the article to say "mainly in the south" for some time. Judging from history, Alarics appears to be editing against consensus, although no discussion on talk has occurred, a number of editors have reverted changes in this area. I've done so as well: [1] and I suggest a consensus be reached here before material is reinserted. I would also suggest that corpun.com is not a reliable source unless established as such. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand where you are coming from here. I think you had better look at the edit history again because it seems clear that you are mistaken. The "mainly in the south" point was there in the first-ever version of the article; the phrase "mainly southern and rural" first appeared on 2 August 2005 [2]; I first edited this page nearly four years after that, on 28 April 2009. The "mainly southern and rural" bit was first removed, without explanation, on 14 July 2009 by 69.219.236.137 [3]. I reverted the same day [4]. It then remained untouched until 29 October 2009, when 24.100.5.215 put a "citation needed" tag on it. Then on 25 December 2009 (yesterday), 74.162.55.123 changed it to "many parts of the United States", [5] which isn't exactly untrue but is rather misleading, and clearly less accurate than the phrase that had stood in the article for 4 years and 4 months. I reverted it later yesterday [6], but added a recent reference from The New York Times to support the phrase (the NYT article actually says "particularly in rural parts of the South and the lower Midwest"). You have now reverted that edit, including deleting the very citation that supports the contested point!

I think that shows that I cannot be accused of "editing against consensus". Until you came along today, in the four and a half years this article has existed, only 3 editors, out of all those who have contributed to the article, have contested this particular point, and all of them were anonymous editors. I have contributed quite a lot of edits to the page over the last few months, but hardly any of them on this particular point. The impression you give, that I have been constantly battling with a lot of other editors on this issue, is completely false.

What particularly mystifies me is that, among people who know anything about school corporal punishment in the USA, whether they are for it or against it or neutral, nobody disputes that it is essentially a southern phenomenon, indeed this is extremely well-documented. Look at the main article on this subject, School corporal punishment, which has a map showing that nearly all the states where corporal punishment is still legal are in the South. Look also at the Center for Effective Discipline, which quotes official statistics to prove the point.

Can you quote a single source on this subject that does NOT say that school corporal punishment in the USA is mainly in the south?

As to whether corpun.com is a reliable source, that also first appeared as a citation in July 2005 and was nothing to do with me. I notice that many other WP articles to do with corporal punishment have long cited it, so in adding two more references to it yesterday I assumed it was regarded as acceptable. One of those anyway is just a list of external links to school handbooks which, when you click them, turn out to be what it is claimed they are, so that one at least surely cannot be described as an unreliable source. -- Alarics (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see more than the NY Times article you cite here [7] to establish the U.S. South as a place where paddling is predominate. I think this is an assertion that needs more than one reference. The Times article points out 5 states (Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama and Arkansas) handle 70% of students paddled. The article itself states that paddling is primarily in rural areas of the South and Midwest. That seems to contradict the idea that corporal punishment is "mainly in the South." It is apparently more complicated than that.

I am concerned that the references are, for the most part, linked to corpun.com. There should be more references besides corpun.com sources. The references should connect directly to the source, not through an intermediary or "middle man" site like corpun. Is the site recognized as an academic source? Is its editor/author, Colin Farrell, considered an expert in the field of corporal punishment? If no to the two questions, there is no reason for the links of corpun.com to be used on Wikipedia.

I do not wish to offend you, Alarics, but you need to provide sources for your assertions and Assume Good Faith (WP:AGF) in those who question your edits and assertions. Most Wikipedians and Wikipedia readers are not experts and this site relies on Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and Verifiability (WP:V) in order for us to understand a subject. Even if you are an expert on a subject, you must have reliable source to back them up. Simply stating you are right will not help your arguments.

I hope you will take my criticisms and advice in mind with the best faith possible. :) Ripberger (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

When have I ever claimed not to need to cite reliable sources? I am perfectly familiar with WP policy on that, and I abide by it. (In the case in point, it was I who provided the reliable source, i.e. The New York Times, and User:Lar who removed it!) Nor was I remotely assuming anything other than good faith on anybody's part. I just pointed out, with a listing of the various edits concerned, that if you study the edit history you can see that User:Lar is mistaken in accusing me of "editing against consensus". He said I had been trying for some time to get the article to say "mainly in the South". In fact, the article said that at its inception four and a half years ago; it was changed to "mainly southern and rural" shortly afterwards and stayed that way for almost four years continuously before I even started editing Wikipedia. Only just recently has anyone challenged it, viz. 3 anonymous IP editors, none of whom produced any source to contradict it. They, it seems to me, are the ones who are "editing against consensus".

As for the NYT article that I cited and which User:Lar removed: as you say, it notes that 70% of paddlings take place in Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama and Arkansas. How is that not "mainly in the South"? The "rural" point, I agree, may need more support. But, again, it was not I who inserted that word in the first place!

I don't feel that strongly about the substantive issue. I think the article will do as it stands, though of course it could be improved. I am here merely defending myself against false accusations as to my editing behavior. -- Alarics (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If the article says "70% of paddlings take place in Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama and Arkansas" then quote it and say that. Let the reader draw their own conclusions. Saying "mainly in the south" is synthesis, not restatement, and we frown on synthesis as a kind of original research. I think the far bigger issue here, though, is use of corpun.com, which appears to be a highly partisan site. Has it been clearly established as a reliable source? If so, where? Finally, looking in the history, I see signs that you, Alarics, have been reverted by a large number of respected editors, not just IPs. That should be giving you pause, it certainly did me. ++Lar: t/c 09:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You allege that I "have been reverted by a large number of respected editors". That is quite a serious accusation; can you substantiate it? -- Alarics (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to take the heat out of this somewhat. Lar, I've looked back over the last year of editing on this article and can't see signs of Alarics being repeatedly reverted by respected editors so perhaps you'd like to refactor that? I also think your last edit, which removed sourced material, was ill-thought out, if I may be so bold. As for this corpun.com site, it looks a perfectly good, even scholarly, resource, built itself from secondary sources that seem sufficiently cited. I don't believe there to be any other non-fetishistic site on this subject, so not using it would simply render articles on this subject unreferenced and empty or full of porn site quotes; not ideal at all. If you're wanting to challenge the site, Lar, then WP:RSN would seem to be the place to try to get consensus - let me know if you do, as I'm prepared to defend it there (having stumbled into this blind). ?REDVERS? 14:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not averse to restoring that edit (and redoing the subsequent edits) if consensus is that too much material was removed too hastily. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My primary concern now is that an external website (Wikipedia Review) has confirmed that Alarics is the owner of the corpun.com website. He is violating WP:SPAM and WP:COI by continuing to add the links. He has saturated several corporal punishment-related with the corpun.com links (see his contributions) and has reverted the edits of User:Mangoe and User:Fran Rogers on the Chamberlain-Hunt Academy article. User:Fran Rogers has already warned him about his behavior and now so has Lar. I have no problem with scholarly efforts at corporal punishment-related sites, but Alarics has a WP:COI here and I can no longer see his edits here or on other corporal punishment-related sites in good faith. What can we do about this? Ripberger (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Drill through. If corpun.com makes an assertion about something, and it's referenced, follow the links to the sources. If they are reliable, use the referenced material to present information to the readership here, but don't use the wording or positioning that the corpun.com site uses. A thank you on the talk page to the owners of the corpun.com site might be appropriate, but if the site itself isn't reliable, we shouldn't be citing from it. Some independent establishment of reliability is needed. We shouldn't take WR's word for something being unreliable any more than we take the word of one editor that something IS reliable (although we default to assuming good faith about sourcing). ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Corpun.com is primarily a compilation of sources. Why not just cite those sources instead of using corpun as a "middle man" site? And I would prefer other sources besides it. WR is not questioning the reliability of the site, but the motives of its owner. I do not think Alarics should be editing any corporal punishment-related articles and spamming his site on Wikipedia. I would like action to be taken on that. I ask again, what can we do about this? Ripberger (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think if you look closer you'll find I haven't been spamming corpun.com on Wikipedia. Many of the links to that site were put there by others, not by me. (I have myself REMOVED references to corpun.com put there by other editors, when I know there is a more direct citation available.) I only cite it when there is no other source for that item. In the great majority of cases those are respectable news items not otherwise available on line (bear in mind that the great majority of corpun.com consists of a huge archive of historical press articles) -- "convenience links" I think they are called in WP. Those surely are reliable sources, unless you are suggesting that they have been made up. I think someone who takes a few minutes to explore the site, and reads its "About this site" page, will see that it is not the sort of site that makes things up. The relatively few bits of corpun.com that use anecdotal sources (not RS in WP terms) make clear that that is all they are, and I would never cite those on WP. Likewise, any opinion is clearly separated from fact, just as with a good newspaper.

As for Wikipedia Review, it seems to be an anti-Wikipedia site that hates everybody on here, interprets everything in the worst possible light, and assumes bad faith at all times. Its tone is hysterical and abusive, and it jumps to all sorts of conclusions. Most of what they say about me and my edits is incorrect. Everybody makes a mistake occasionally, but I think my overall editing record, if anyone has the time and energy to go through it in detail, will stand scrutiny. I am quite happy to discuss any individual instances that people have problems with.

On the substantive issue, I have never on WP pushed a particular POV on corporal punishment and include both pro- and anti- points of view when opinions are discussed, though most is neutral factual material. To come back to Paddle (spanking), the only inline reference citing corpun.com now is to the "list of handbooks of schools which say themselves that they use the paddle" pages, which is just a list of external links that, as I said before, do turn out, when you click on them, so be what they say they are. So I cannot see how that is an unreliable source or in any way partisan. No such list is available anywhere else, as far as I know. -- Alarics (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1