Talk:Spanking

Why did you delete the "spanking in popular culture" in books, cartoons and video games?

Dear wikipedia users.

I have gotten your message that you've deleted my work on Spanking in Popular Culture. Can you please explain to me why?

I have seen spanking in books like "The Tale of Benjamin Bunny" 1903, Rasco and the Rats of Nimh 2. and also seen spanking in cartoons like the cartoon movie "Tom Sawyer 2000", "Sailor Moon", I've also seen spanking in video games like "Shining in the Darkness" and "Final Fantasy 8" and in Laura Bow 2: Dagger of Amon Ra, Ernie Leech did threaten to spank Laura Bow. Also in Paper Mario 2: Thousand year door, Rawk Hawk mentioned spanking to Super Mario. Also Spanking was mentioned in Super Paper Mario 3.

Anyways can we have a new article called Spanking in Popular Culture? And can we include cartoon movies and TV shows and video games and books because it's part of the popular culture. Next time I'll ask for permission next time and be a little more respectful to wikipedia articles. CrosswalkX (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I personally did not remove it. But, you should probably read the WP:POPCULTURE article for guidelines on this type of section. The general view is that they should not be used in articles at all, but the view has softened to at least hold sections like this to a certain standard. The reason is because "these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft."Legitimus (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The {{ref-improve}} tag

I've pulled the tag. If there's a {{ref-improve}} tag on an article, it goes at the top. But when I reviewed the refs, this appeared to me to be a well-sourced article as it stands. If some of you would like to see better references, it would be helpful if you could be more specific about the shortcomings you think need to be corrected. Consider adding {{citation-needed}} tags to any claims you think might be WP:OR or otherwise suspect. If this really is a more general concern about the sourcing that you feel justifies tagging the entire article, it would be helpful to discuss it here on the article talk page. Msnicki (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please bear in mind also that the "In the home" and "In schools" sections are only supposed to be brief summaries and that all the detail, including references, should go into the Corporal punishment in the home and School corporal punishment articles, respectively. I have cut some of the schools detail because it is all covered in the main article. That is where we should be looking to see whether the references are adequate, not in this article. Really the "In the home" section needs similarly cutting. -- Alarics (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Child abuse

Adding this to the see also section is relevant as spanking can be construed as child abuse if marks are left or if performed by a foster parent, in some jurisdictions. So, unless there is not any legitimate reason to not include the see also, I will add it back.Williamsville (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet, there can be a link. In the body of the article Caning is mentioned and that is clearly child abuse in all jurisdictions in the US and Canada, so I believe the see also should include child abuseWilliamsville (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think caning is abuse in the US? How is it different from paddling, which is permitted in many US jurisdictions, even used officially in schools? I don't think the fact that something is illegal in certain other jurisdictions automatically makes it "child abuse". -- Alarics (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

While I understand your thinking, you've not cited reliable sources to bolster your opinion. Child abuse includes: Non-accidental physical injury of a child inflicted by a parent or caretaker that ranges from superficial bruises and welts (http://www.preventchildabuseny.org/resources/about-child-abuse/) And: Physical. A non-accidental physical injury as a result of punching, beating, kicking, biting, shaking, throwing, stabbing, choking, hitting, burning or otherwise harming a child, that is inflicted by a parent, caregiver or other person who has responsibility for the child. Such injury is considered abuse regardless of whether the caregiver intended to hurt the child. - See more at: http://www.joyfulheartfoundation.org/learn/child-abuse-neglect/about-issue#sthash.mKcqtGX6.dpuf (http://www.joyfulheartfoundation.org/learn/child-abuse-neglect/about-issue)

Caning causes physical injury. The fact that it is illegal in all jurisdictions suggests that a link to the article in the see also section is called for so that the reader can determine whether the spanking is merely spanking or has crossed the line...caning is spanking??? seems very odd to me as it is illegal in the US and Canada. Child abuse vs punishment means: If the punishment harms the child (causes pain, leaves marks, etc., it could be considered excessive (NY State Foster parent manual). And, in all jurisdictions using a closed fist, knocking the child down, or using an object is considered abuse. Also: Corporal punishment is prohibited in all early childhood care and in day care for older children in 36 states (http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/usa.html). And finally, spanking is prohibited as a form of sentencing in the penal system and also in alternate care settings. Therefore adding the link the child abuse in the see also section is warranted.Williamsville (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

But it is illegal in the US and Canada, therefore a link is supported. In addition, spanking can cross the line (by leaving a mark or knocking the child down) and become child abuse, therefore a link in the see also is supported. Unless there are objections here with verifiable reference, I will add a link to Child abuse in the see also sectionWilliamsville (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This type of inclusion would contravene WP's Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view simply by its very inclusion. Whether spanking is or is not considered child abuse is a matter for debate in and of itself. Because WP follows a neutral POV, including any statement indicative of one way or another is not appropriate. Justin.Parallax (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I support Justin's view on this. -- Alarics (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, such an inclusion in perfectly consistent with WP NPOV policy if you read it in full. Make a variety of statement without any reliable sources, which I have been careful to include. For example, the NPOV states, "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." All significant views!! not just your view. the policy then goes on th state: "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" " but you have not provided any verifiable sources to support your opinion. In addition, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." So, based on this, the the also see belongs. Williamsville (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No opinions are being put forward and no statements are being made by the non-inclusion of this tag. You seem to be misconstruing this as an endorsement of the subject, it is not. Neither is WP a place to debate such, and including this tag would invite such.Justin.Parallax (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)