Talk:Corporal punishment in the home/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Child Spanking

How old is the child or infant? Is war in your mind like fighting an infant or the Devil? What were the results of corporal punishement for different age groups of children? Where are the "many" studies; and were the researches pro or against? And is the carrot better than the stick (maybe no carrot, but certainly the stick)? Training, learning, nurturing, as well as diplomacy ARE variations of "carrot and stick". Watch ALL the episodes of "Leave It to Beaver" before passing "judgement". Last statement is to the "Watchers"; Bless Them All. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhengisKhanman (talk • contribs) 05:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read the article itself. This section and this section most likely will answer your questions. Wikipedia is not a forum for holding debates, just a reporting of the facts through as many reliable sources as possible.Legitimus (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

POV check?

119.224.14.7 calls for a POV check on the grounds that there "seem to be way too many editorial comments in favor of spanking".

What??? Adding together the "pro and con", "alternatives to spanking", "crime rates and spanking bans" and "agencies that ppose spanking" sections, by my calculations the opinions mentioned and referenced (these are not "editorial comments", by the way, but attempts to reflect the debate as reported in secondary sources) are divided as follows:

• Broadly in favour of corporal punishment: 28 lines
• Broadly against corporal punishment: 79 lines

It appears to me that, if a POV check were needed, it would be because there are "way too many" comments against spanking. Alarics (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with 119.224.14.7, I don't think this article has a problem with undue weight given to the pro-spanking opinion. So there's no reason for a {{POV check}}. True, there are some statements given in the article which are unsupported by sources, but that's a problem with WP:OR and WP:V, not WP:NPOV. And there is an ongoing effort to make the whole article more well-cited. Feel free to join in that, 119.224.14.7! Gabbe (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the POV check. You have many examples of those who are against spanking. You even mentioned above that you have 3 sections that are more for the anti-spanking side of the debate while only fleetingly mentioning support of spanking. Being neutral when researching a topic should mean that both sides get equal representation. I find it hard to believe that support for spanking is only represented by two people as I am sure that there are researchers who have claimed that the anti spanking arguments are blown out of proportion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.186.197 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we are not obliged to give equal representation to both sides, that would be a violation of WP:GEVAL. We are obliged to give each side a treatment equal to its prominence among experts, per WP:DUE. Looking at available research and position papers, its clear what the majority view is among physicians/pediatricians/psychologists/etc., and also that this view is opposed by a few researchers (notably Larzelere and Baumrind). Gabbe (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to accept the credentials of the most prominent and most educated group experts. And no you wont see any citations because they don't have degrees in science or medicine they are called parents. Each parent earns a degree in being a parent to as many children as they have and each child teaches the parent what the parent must learn in order to finish the job. Sadly some parents loose control and do a lousy job but they are not the rule they are the exception. Deferring the subject to scientists and medical professionals, would be fool hardy and will cause another thalidomide, DDT, DES scenario. I am completely disappointed by this article it show a clear bias to those feminist zealots who can't understand that there are high energy boys out there that are being abused by toxic medications in order to "get them to behave". We are trading a society of well adjusted people for a society of drug addled teens with no coping skills. Get it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.39.241.182 (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on the article and on society. I'm afraid, however, that this is not a forum for your personal views about scientists, doctors, feminists, society, abuse of drugs, et cetera, however valid your views may be. You need to present practical suggestions as to what you think the article should cover. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Defining corporal punishment

I removed a previously disputed citation from the lead paragraph. CP is already defined with references in the Corporal punishment article. I don't think we need a citation to say the obvious define this a priori concept; namely, that corporal punishment in the home is mostly carried out by parents in the home. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Have read the Corporal punishment article more carefully, and think now that the definition is not that good. See Talk:Corporal punishment/Archive 1#Hatnote: "corporal" vs. "physical" punishment & injury and also Talk:Corporal punishment/Archive 2#Definition: lead paragraph. -Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Interpretation of Bible verses

Removed the following content from Religious views section; appears to be original research, presenting a POV without a citation (WP:NOR):

These arguments are made to rationalize spanking in spite of the fact that the quoted Biblical verses are either of the vague category of 'discipline' which does not imply physical punishment and, on the other hand, the use of a 'rod' which indicates the verse recommends 'caning' with a large weapon, which is considered child abuse and is illegal in most states of the United States.

-Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Effects" section

I have renamed the "Research" section "Effects" since the research in this section mostly deals with effects on children and society. Research findings themselves are also referenced in other sections, such as Relationship to child abuse and Professional opinion. I would also suggest placing this section after "Relationship to child abuse", since the latter serves as a continuation of what is said under "Professional opinion". I think it's also kinder to the reader to place longer sections after shorter ones, and simpler ideas before more complex ones. –Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

Some crucial material in the lead section is unsourced and is not substantiated elsewhere in the article. In particular, I am skeptical of the claim that "attitudes in many countries changed in the 1950s and 60s following the publication by pediatrician Benjamin McLane Spock of Baby and Child Care in 1946"—especially considering that as late as 1995, over 90% of parents surveyed by Murray Straus in the US voluntarily reported spanking their children themselves. True, other countries have had different public responses (reflected in laws banning removing the right of parents to use CP) but if Spock's book had an influence anywhere, I would have expected it to have been in the US.

As for enforcement of anti-smacking laws being "rare", there is at least anecdotal evidence that in Sweden, the first nation to ban smacking children, enforcement is taken seriously. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

References

I too am a bit suspicious of the claim that Dr. Spock's work was that influential, especially when there is no source to substantiate it. Spock's influence is an interesting topic in and of itself, in that most popular (as opposed to scholarly) commentary about him is based on simple politics. That is, he was known for being against the Vietnam war and having leftist political views, so pro-war conservatives started a smear campaign that was intended to attack him professionally. This includes claims that his work encouraged "permissive" parenting and this in turn lead to the (imaginary) increase in crime and entitlement of the next generation, as well as the famous myth about his son committing suicide. This mutated over time into the claim that he was originator of philosophy against corporal punishment, that this view became pervasive and lead to a decrease in us of CP, and that this in turn is why crime is so high and children of modern times are so badly behaved (despite piles of empirical evidence showing no such trends). I've heard this bollocks repeated as recently as two weeks ago. So yes I think that definitely should be removed if no evidence supporting it can be found.

The remark about enforcement being rare is also unsourced and appears to be mere wishful thinking by some pro-CP editor.Legitimus (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've changed both problematic parts now. Regarding the shift in attitude, I found a decent source from the 90s that examined attitudes over time since the 1960s (when most dedicated "child abuse" laws were passed). And you may note that when reading the corporal punishment article, the shift appears to have actually been a gradual change in thinking over several hundred years. For example, it was acceptable to physically punish one's wife or household servants up until the 19th century, and since the 18th century there seemed to be a growing negative view of punishment in schools. One other theory I have that I don't have a solid, direct source for is that the 20th century also saw the general rise of psychology in general as a medical field.Legitimus (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I did some rewording to define "child abuse" in this context, and some other minor changes. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am sceptical about this phrase: "possibly as a result of the shift from an industrial to a post-industrial economic system". I don't have the book cited at the end of that sentence, but if "possibly" is the best it can do, I think the phrase would be better deleted. -- Alarics (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the book either, but the connection seems plausible to me. By and large, industrial workers are required to follow rules and don't have to do much in the way of independent thinking. Corporal punishment is the traditional method for producing people with those attributes, who learn to fear challenging authority (as long as the threat of punishment is present). Doubtless there were other factors involved with changing public opinions, but I don't see anything illogical about this statement in the absence of a competing explanation. Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That's very close to what the source says, Coconutporkpie. Here, I will paste the scanned OCR text:

“ A major structural change in society has been the shift toward a postindustrial economic system. Employment in manufacturing has declined drastically, as has the demand for unskilled manual workers. There is an increasing demand for professional, technical, and clerical workers. These are positions that, at a minimum, demand literacy and computational skills. A large proportion of these jobs also demand interpersonal and managerial skills. Kohn and others (Kohn, 1969; Kohn & Schooler, 1983; Straus, 1971) have argued that corporal punishment is inconsistent with the maximization of interpersonal and managerial skills. Consistent with that, Straus and Mathur (1994) found that corporal punishment was linked to a lowered probability of college graduation. Moreover, of those who did graduate from college, Gimpel and Straus (1992) found that corporal punishment decreased the probability of being in the top fifth of the U.S. occupation/income distribution. Kohn ( 1969) suggests that parents who expect their child to attend college and be employed in non-manual work occupations tend to avoid using corporal punishment, and thus provide anticipatory socialization for social roles in which what is needed is information and negotiation skills rather than physical strength and compliance with the rigid routines of the assembly line. To the extent that this is correct, the norms and practices of American and other postindustrial societies should be moving away from use of corporal punishment in childrearing. ”

I believe the "possibly" was due to this being a single source, which I understand.Legitimus (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I see now; not so much "independent thinking" as negotiating skills: people didn't go from being factory workers to entrepreneurs, but instead to service workers. When exactly does the source estimate that the shift in parental attitudes took place? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The shift is gradual so it's hard to pinpoint a specific time. For example, one paragraph states: "In the 1960s, every state in the US passed legislation designed to protect children from physical abuse and to provide services for abused children. Ironically, in order to garner sufficient votes to pass the child abuse laws, it was typically necessary to include a provision declaring that parents continued to have the right to use corporal punishment." Based on that, that seems like the 50s was when things began to change socially for legislation to eventually be created.Legitimus (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I found the book through Google Books and as I understand the argument, structural changes in society were considered to precipitate subsequent changes to cultural norms (and vice versa). So we could expect trends in approval of CP to follow the decline in using CP attendant to the need to prepare children for the new economic realities (if the hypothesis is correct; the authors only state that this is "likely"). I notice also that the graph on page 96 shows approval of CP in the U.S. in 1968 at still above 90 percent. Attitudes seem to have significantly shifted only after the 1960s. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This theory seems to me very flaky and not worthy of inclusion in the lead. Also, we are in danger of greatly overstating the shift in attitudes. 70% of Americans still believe in spanking, according to a Washington Post blog report called "Millennials like to spank their kids just as much as their parents did" which is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/05/millennials-like-to-spank-their-kids-just-as-much-as-their-parents-did/ -- Alarics (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about it being "flaky". In fact, I think that economic forces are probably the strongest driver of social trends in general. However, with all of the conflicting claims and opinions around the topic, I'm wary of confusing things further by stretching the conclusions of the sources beyond what they explicitly state. Since this study dealt only with the U.S., I don't think it can be generalized to other countries. The U.S., and especially the southern U.S., seem really to be on the extreme end of support for corporal punishment among Western countries. Maybe this source belongs more with the section on the United States under "Where lawful". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Economics are very important to this topic. For example Melvin Konner and others have found a growing body of anthropological evidence that hunter-gatherer cultures past and present do not practice CP on children at all. But you make a fair point. I will continue to search for more definitive sources. So long as we keep this nonsense about Benjamin Spock out (unless someone can produce RS that it is relevant).Legitimus (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pending a more thorough examination of the roots of the trends in social acceptance of CP more definitive sources, I've moved this one reference to the U.S. sub-section of Where lawful, and changed the dates to reflect the graph on page 96. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the absence of CP in hunter-gatherer societies mentioned by @Legitimus: above, I've also come across that point, with some references, in Peter Gray's blog (among other places): "How Hunter-Gatherers Maintained Their Egalitarian Ways" and "Hunter-Gatherers’ Playful Parenting" are two essays that mention it. I think that would make an interesting addition to the Corporal punishment article. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge religion section w/Social acceptance?

I suggest merging the section Religious arguments into the section on popular opinion/Social acceptance: partly to flesh out the latter section, but mainly because religion, as a social phenomenon, seems be a major factor in the social acceptance of CP—I suspect through establishing certain group norms that reinforce a sense of belonging, and also offering metaphysical justification for a hierarchical, authoritarian worldview. Here are some data (dealing with the United States, but similar trends have been observed in other countries too): Enten, Harry (15 September 2014). "Americans’ Opinions On Spanking Vary By Party, Race, Region And Religion" fivethirtyeight.com. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Those are the same data as in the Washington Post blog article, Millennials like to spank their kids just as much as their parents did, that I already referred to six days ago. I don't agree that they show that religion is "a major factor" in the social acceptance of CP. Clearly it is *a* factor for some, but we need to bear in mind that spanking still had majority support (61%) among respondents professing no religion at all. It's only a difference of degree, and only certain religions are significantly more approving, notably Protestants. Catholics are not much more supportive of CP than the non-religious; Jews much less so. So any sweeping generalisations about the influence of religion would be misleading, I think. -- Alarics (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; I was only offering my own hypothesis. I still think that religion is enough of a factor to make the section more relevant as an element of broader social acceptance than as a stand-alone section. Also, the paragraph within the Religious arguments section on the European Human Rights Commission, and the quote from the Commissioner for Human Rights, deal more with interpretations of the limits of religious freedom than with religious views per se, and so probably belong more in the section on human rights. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Pros?

This article has plenty of info on people, surveys, and info on experiments that are against corporal punishment, but has almost no info on people or anything else that are in favor of corporal punishment. So...what I'm saying is that it's not really balanced. Any thoughts on this?--Packinheat2u (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia sets great store by peer-reviewed articles by "experts" in academic journals, and "expert" opinion is 98% all on one side on this particular issue. I suspect there is an element of groupthink about it. I agree that other views are consequently under-represented. If you can find material from respectable sources that redresses the balance somewhat, I for one shall not object. -- Alarics (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Corporal punishment is natural, easy, and seems to work; lots of people use it and believe in its efficacy; it's even in the Bible. Is that what you have in mind? (expressed more eloquently, of course) User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The "lots of people use it" and "it's even in the Bible" parts are fairly easy to back up with respectable sources, so yes, I think that would help. (Although, the article would also have to reflect that most modern sources say so in the context of something like "it's now banned in Sweden even though it's in the Bible", or whatever.) "natural, easy, and seems to work" would be rather tougher to find respectable sources for (maybe not the "easy" part). Any ideas? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm in favor of CP, I'm just pointing out the unbalanced article. --Packinheat2u (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done a little research. Supporting the pro point of view from reliable sources is not a trivial task. I did find one NYT's article though, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/25/us/findings-give-some-support-to-advocates-of-spanking.html However, the data in it is outdated. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no point in adding it, if it's outdated.--Packinheat2u (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We are failing here though, with the vast majority of parents, perhaps as many as 90%, spanking at least some and our sourced information that it has the potential for harm. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are as surprised as you are when they learn this, but there is really no "debate" among scientists like the non-expert public discourse seems to imply. Thus, there is nothing to "balance." There really is no primary research showing it is not harmful or that it is more effective than other methods. There are only two scholarly sources that had "pro" findings: Larzelere's 20-year-old paper, which was a literature review and not primary research, and his findings also didn't pan out under scrutiny. And Baumrind's (which your New York Times article is referring to), which was not a study at all but rather a talk she gave at Berkley during the APA conference. It is notable that the NYT article erroneously refers to the talk as "findings," when Baumrind conducted no research of any sort and her paper is not peer-reviewed. The piece was an purely editorial. One given by a respected psychologist, but still an editorial.

The only other "pro" arguments I ever hear use either religion or worthless self-report hearsay anecdotal evidence. The corporal punishment arena has always been a fascinating area for me in how public perception so radically departs from scientific evidence. I was reading yet another paper today discussing how that seeming majority approval is based on cognitive dissonance. Simply put, any person who was a parent to a child at some point and spanked them is nearly incapable of mentally accepting the evidence of harm, because it causes a "paradox." If the accept in the mind that corporal punishment is harmful and/or wrong, they must admit to themselves that they may have intentionally harmed their own child, that they are a child abuser. Thus, there sometimes can be no reasoning with such people.Legitimus (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Or could it be the reverse - that it is scientists that themselves are guilty of cognitive dissonance here? The large majority of human beings on the planet - across many different cultures - practice some form of corporal punishment. To conclude that it is harmful is to basically say that most human beings walking around on Earth have been harmed by this. That's a problematic conclusion, to say the least. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You're making a critical error known as argumentum ad populum. Further, I fail to see how the scientists would have fallen to cognitive dissonance, since they have no ulterior motive for their findings.Legitimus (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"To conclude that it is harmful is to basically say that most human beings walking around on Earth have been harmed by this". You might find it interesting to read Alice Miller (psychologist), or indeed to read some of her works, because, according to our article on her, that's exactly what she did say. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed she did, though some might take the view that she was barking mad. Certainly this does not appear to be what most people think. I think her weird minority views are possibly unduly emphasised in this article. I am removing the word "influential" because there is no evidence cited for that. -- Alarics (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In the article about her, that word is sourced to this obituary in the Guardian, which begins by describing her as "influential and controversial", and saying that her books sold millions, and ends by saying she "attracted a worldwide following". The one quite short paragraph about her views currently in this article doesn't seem like undue weight, though I don't see a need for the re-insertion of "influential". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I also just read this article, expecting it to at least present some rational pro arguments. There are none presented - that makes this article - which is supposed to be a consideration of corporal punishment in the home incredibly one sided - biased even. Chapter 4-7 are just all against. Then the article ends. I challenge the authors to consider that corporal punishment in the home is very widespread in the world and needs to be looked at rationally as a reality - not as a one sided case against. A very disappointing article. For a beginning in the search for a pro chapter the previously discussed Diana Baumrind and others - look at the American Psychological Association - http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2002/06/spanking.aspx - a clear challenge to a faulty (and therefore biased?)meta analysis - a flawed study finding against corporal punishment that includes abusive, excessive force - even going so far as to say - "But, that other parents could use mild to moderate corporal punishment effectively. "The fact that some parents punish excessively and unwisely is not an argument, however, for counseling all parents not to punish at all." In fact a majority of people have experienced corporal punishment. I personally see its careful use as positive. This article is biased. Plain and simple.67.180.172.93 (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to locate scholarly scientific sources (not press releases, forum posts or theological sites) that support a pro stance. Wikipedia only reports on what the sources say, and it's not our fault that there is so little scientific evidence of it being safe and/or effective. As to being widespread, so was using mercury as a medicine or using lead for plumbing.Legitimus (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Baumrind et al.'s point about alleged bias from "excessive" use of CP in the studies analyzed by Gershoff is addressed, along with Gershoff's response to such concerns, in the Effects section, under "2002 meta-analysis, criticism, and response". I concur that a majority of people having experienced CP is not evidence against its harmfulness. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wife-beating

Regarding the recent addition to the lead, "In most western countries, [adult corporal punishment] has come to be regarded as socially unacceptable wife-beating, domestic violence or abuse"—unless I'm mistaken, it's also considered assault and/or battery in the statutes of those countries and internationally as a violation of human rights; therefore, it seems misleading to portray it as just a "socially unacceptable" act that "occurs in isolated cases"—to me, those legal dimensions seem much more salient than that its dimension as a type of "corporal punishment", accepted or not.

Also, since this article is otherwise dealing entirely with CP used on children, maybe this particular passage should become a subsection of the main corporal punishment article, which deals more with the history of CP as used against adults. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact , since this particular passage is a verbatim copy of Spanking#Adult spanking, I think rather that it could be removed from this article and a link added to Domestic violence, which already covers this topic. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Article split: USA

I moved most of the material dealing with the U.S. formerly under "Where lawful" to a new page: Corporal punishment of minors in the United States. It seemed to me that there was enough published on the various dimensions of corporal punishment in that country specifically, including public opinion, professional opinion, the debate concerning the distinction between punishment and abuse, and the legal status of school corporal punishment in various states, to warrant its own page.

When merging "Where lawful" and "Where outlawed" under the heading Corporal punishment in the home#Legal status by country in this article (for improved readability—not forcing readers to look in two different places for info on a given country—and avoiding possible POV forking), I noticed that the subheading about the U.S. was the only one with a great deal of material not directly dealing with legal issues; it seemed to put undue emphasis on the U.S. in the context of this general article, and made the split seem more logical. Also see guidelines under Wikipedia:Splitting. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to call the new article just "Corporal punishment in the United States" in line with the existing articles for Singapore, Malaysia, etc. In fact I had had in mind to create such an article a long time ago but have not had time to do it (and also one for the UK).

Also the "part of a series on ...." template needs updating. -- Alarics (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Canadian joint statement (2004) and NSPCC Scotland report (2015)

There is some potentially relevant material contained in these two documents—I put links to them in the external links section of the article, but I think working the material into the body of the article, with citations, might be a better use of the information. I am working on some other projects, but plan to integrate the relevant material soon if no one else does. Citations are given below. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Durrant, J.E.; Ensom, R.; Coalition on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth (2004). Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth (PDF). Ottawa: Coalition on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth.

Heilmann, A.; Kelly, Y.; Watt, R.G. (November 2015). Equally Protected? A review of the evidence on the physical punishment of children (PDF). NSPCC Scotland, Children 1st, Barnardo’s Scotland, Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland.

But be aware that both are from advocacy groups with a particular POV on corporal punishment, so this is not unbiased or objective factual information but special pleading. -- Alarics (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In a quick read of the documents, I have seen no suggestion of special pleading going on. The conclusions drawn seem entirely consistent with peer-reviewed literature on the subject. However, the material I have in mind is the positions of the various agencies involved in sponsoring or publishing the documents. The documents serve as reliable sources for the opinions of Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Child Welfare League of Canada, Canadian Child Care Federation, Canadian Public Health Association, NSPCC, Barnardo’s, and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, among others (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Reliability in specific contexts). These opinions are noteworthy in that they come from reputable well-known organizations and agencies, and thus provide an opportunity to "build the web" through linking to articles about those organizations (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Principles). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Corporal punishment in the home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604143658/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1168291.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1168291.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Corporal punishment in the UK

This section needs attention. It previously stated that use of implements was legal in the UK. That certainly is not the case in Scotland so i copied a sentence from the main CP article over from that. I was under the impression that corporal punishment with implements was also illegal now in England+Wales, but i cant find a source on it so i may be wrong. Thought it best to put a warning tag there until the section is checked and sourced properly. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This site, updated May 2010, seems to say that in England and Wales (and Northern Ireland) the law allows "reasonable punishment" of children and it would be for a court to decide what constitutes reasonable. I infer that there is no explicit reference to the use of implements, unlike in Scotland. Alarics (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

When i heard it before i guess it may just have been about Scotland. I did find this [1] from 2000 saying that plans to ban use of implements was considered and this [2] a few days later saying it was to be outlawed in England, but i still cant find a source saying it was.

I did come across this one from 2008 [3] which says:

"Under the 2004 Children's Act, which came into force in January 2005, mild smacking is allowed.

Any punishment which causes visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts can result in legal action."

That may be a better description for the article than it simply saying leaving marks on the body like at the moment. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Also found this which whilst it may not be a reliable source for present law does highlight it may be problematic to openly suggest it is legal to use implements in England and Wales like at present in the article. [4] This says "However, physical punishment will be considered "unreasonable" if it leaves a mark or on the child or if the child is hit with an implement such as a cane or belt." Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 seems to be the key legislation for England and Wales but the definition and application of the law by the courts is harder to find. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the section of the law in question.

Section 58 - Reasonable punishment

(1)In relation to any offence specified in subsection (2), battery of a child cannot be justified on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.

(2)The offences referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a)an offence under section 18 or 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100) (wounding and causing grievous bodily harm);

(b)an offence under section 47 of that Act (assault occasioning actual bodily harm);

(c)an offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12) (cruelty to persons under 16).

(3)Battery of a child causing actual bodily harm to the child cannot be justified in any civil proceedings on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (3) “actual bodily harm” has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

(5)In section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, omit subsection (7).

It basically tells us nothing though lol. So i presume there is no specific prohibition, but that still seems rather different to clearly suggesting it is permitted as the article currently does. Maybe we should just avoid mentioning the implement bit but continue to point out its banned in Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

See also this article. Alarics (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you be ok with removing "Parents in England are also allowed and permitted to use implements (such as a cane, hairbrush, or belt) similar to the US". So it simply reads something like "In the UK, spanking or smacking is legal, but it may not leave a mark on the body and in Scotland since October 2003 it has been illegal to use implements". Is not clear what the real position is in England+Wales as parliament does not define it properly, whilst it doesnt look like its outlawed, we are hinting that it is specifically endorsed/allowed at the moment. US laws are certainly more lenient when it comes to CP with implements in many states, than would be the case here. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I would be happy with that. Alarics (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change, it is not worded as well as it could be but the whole section needs improving really. I have removed the accuracy tag. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made an edit to this page that clarifies the position of the UK goverment upon CP. Their position as defined in the S58 review document http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/S58ReviewReport.pdf is that any assault on a child that causes more than temporary reddening of the skin is illegal. The wording is this:

"Following the change in the law, the Crown Prosecution Service amended the Charging Standard on offences against the person, in particular the section dealing with common assault. The Charging Standard now states that the vulnerability of the victim, such as being a child assaulted by an adult, should be treated as an aggravating factor when deciding the appropriate charge. Injuries that would usually lead to a charge of “common assault” now should be more appropriately charged as “assault occasioning actual bodily harm” under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (on which charge the defence of reasonable punishment is not now available), unless the injury amounted to no more than temporary reddening of the skin and the injury is transient and trifling." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.232.21 (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made a change to the page to remove the wording about smacking with an 'implement' - it's no longer supported by the citation as they have revised their publication. It's perhaps worth noting that 'Charging standards' and 'the law' are two totally different things - the charging standards have been changed as a fudge to try and work round (or delay action on) the ECHR ruling, and afaik have not been tested in the courts. The law has not changed and never mentioned 'implements' specifically - it's focused on the effects of the assault rather than the means.JackPDouglas (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Corporal punishment in England and Wales is legal through Common (case) law of R v Hopley 2F&F 202 which is "By the law of England, a parent or a schoolmaster (who for this purpose represents the parent and has the parental authority delegated to him), may for the purpose of correcting what is evil in the child inflict moderate and reasonable corporal punishment, always, however, with this condition, that it is moderate and reasonable. If it be administered for the gratification of passion or of rage, or if it be immoderate and excessive in its nature or degree, or if it be protracted beyond the child's powers of endurance, or with an instrument unfitted for the purpose and calculated to produce danger to life or limb; in all such cases the punishment is excessive, the violence is unlawful, and if evil consequences to life or limb ensue, then the person inflicting it is answerable to the law, and if death ensues it will be manslaughter..." The first part concerning the use by "schoolmaster" was repealled.

Prior to the introduction of the Children Act (2004), the defence of "lawful correction" could be used for all allegations of assault - effectively "whatever you like, provided you don't kill the child". However, S58 rightly precludes the availability of this implicit defence i.e. "They were naughty and I smacked them" from serious S47 ABH, wounding and cruelty (and repealed the former statutory defence under S1.7 of the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933). Precedent of R v Donovan (see under ABH page) demands that allegations of ABH are supported by injuries that must "no doubt, be more than merely transient and trifling" and the CPS Charging Standard for Offences against the person states must be "serious". The only known precedent of an injury to a child amounting to S47 ABH is "visible bruising" - see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1481246/Smacking-ban-introduced.html for verbatim government press release of the effects of S58. The Crown Prosecution charging standard has no legal basis until supported by precedent, so whilst social workers state "You're not allowed to leave a mark" the law says "you're not allowed to leave a bruise or similar serious injury". Common Assault level injuries - red skin, minor scratches etc. are defensible implicitly in the act of correction - more serious injuries could be prosecuted as ABH, even if they would amount to a charge of mere Common Assault if the victim were an adult.

The Guardian quote that 70% of parents support giving children the same protection as adults from the Guardian is out of context - the original was qualfied provided parents are not prosecuted for minor smacking - see the referenced original source on the CAUnB website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.217.37 (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The CPS charging standard asserting that the age of the victim can be seen as an agrevating factor in deciding upon the charge has been removed - presumabley as having no legal basis. I wrote to the DfE under the FOI:

I'm afraid I assert that operational units of the United Kingdom are acting unlawfully in that:

1. The United Kingdom is asserting that minor injuries should be charged or alleged as serious Actual Bodily Harm under S47 of the Offences against the Person Act (1861) "S47ABH", without supporting precedent in common law and indeed contrary to precedent. 2. The police forces of England and Wales are issuing simple cautions to parents (or those acting in loco parentis) contrary to common law, the Ministry of Justice Guidance and/or Section 6.1 of the Human Rights Act of 1998 through processing the CPS full code test for S47ABH for injuries to the child that in precedent would not support such a charge, thereby ignoring the implicit defence of correction through R v Hopley 2F&F 202, 1860 under S58.1/2 of the Children Act, 2004 when there is no prospect of conviction for S47ABH and therefore that defence was valid, strong and lawful. 3. The local authority social services of England and Wales are launching investigations under S47 of the Children Act of 1989 contrary to common law with assertions of Significant Harm having occurred - S47ABH by S58.3/4 of the Children Act, 2004 without precedent supporting that injuries to the child would amount to S47ABH.

Would the United Kingdom through its Department for Education (charged with this policy) be willing to deny any or all of the above?

Would you be prepared to comment?

And the formal response was that they would not comment on the above assertions (my personal view is this is a fudge designed to maintain ECHR/UNCRC obligations without commiting the political suicide of banning all CP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.217.37 (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Why only describing the view of christianity?

When we read the religious section, we can only find the views from christianity. Those are right and pretty complete yet this way it only seems as if christianity is the only religion supporting spanking of the child? The quran for example says:

Al-Subki said: The guardian must tell the child to pray when he is seven years old and smack him (lightly) if he does not do so when he is ten. We think we should enjoin what is not obligatory and smack for failing to do that which is not obligatory. We smack animals for disciplinary purposes, so what about children? That is in the child's interests, and so that he will get used to praying before he reaches puberty. End quote. or ‘let your rod be hanging on them (children), as a warning and to chastise against neglect of their duties towards Allah’.

To be neutral means to include every point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeizerCookie (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it was left out deliberately, but rather it was simply overlooked. There are not many editors on this English-language wiki who are knowledgeable of Islam or other religions. But now at least, we can start. Do you have a good and authoritative source for your quotation? You did not include a citation.Legitimus (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corporal punishment in the home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604143658/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1168291.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1168291.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Corporal punishment in the home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113031016/http://endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/honduras.html to http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/honduras.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021090930/http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/argentina.html to http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/argentina.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129055806/http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/san-marino.html to http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/san-marino.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402100320/http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/nicaragua.html to http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/nicaragua.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205214007/http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/estonia.html to http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/estonia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)