Talk:Spanking

Double brackets

There is an excessive use of brackets in this article, especially a very poor use of doubled-up brackets. I rewrote the section to remove these, and it was reverted with a comment of "Its [sic] just fine, revert to good".

Let us not count the ironic nature of using poor grammar to justify the reinstatement of poor grammar, but I also resent the implication that by "revert to good" my edit was not good.

It is very poor use of English to have nested brackets, and simply replacing them with square brackets dose not remove the problem, nor is the use of square brackets supported by the MOS

Can you please explain why such a state should be considered acceptable? Thank you. Curved Space (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If you don't like it, then fix it (see WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM). The wholesale removal was inappropriate. It's really a rather minor point and it feels like a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. It's necessary to give a thorough explanation in that paragraph and the information is well-sourced. If you have a better way to rephrase it that doesn't sacrifice any of the content's meaning, then by all means do it. Also, if you're going to say it's "very poor English", then please be sure to cite a reliable source that backs that up. Thanks. I won't be discussing this further. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Unhelpful response. You cannot tell me to fix the problem when you revert my fixing of the problem and then say you will not discuss any further. How can BRD progress when an editor explicitly states they will not D?

Given there will be no response, then the following is for the record:

You say that the information is well-sourced. This does not seem to be the case -- the entire setion under contention is referenced only once, by "Corporal punishment". Pediatric Clinics of North America (Review) which is not available to view. Besides, there is no dispute over the validity of the comments, only that they are excessive and disrupt the flow of work. However, I will let the current source stand, even though it cannot be verified, but have also tagged that a better or corroborating source needs to be found as well.

If you wish sources to show that it is poor English, structure -- here you are:

• "Occasionally you may find yourself placing one set of parentheses inside another. Sometimes this is unavoidable, but you should avoid it whenever possible, since it makes your sentence hard to follow. "
• "Using lots of brackets in your writing is usually a sign of bad sentence structure."
• "In serious papers and letters, you should avoid it completely, and rather find a way of re-phrase it. "
• Also the Wikipedia MOS does not support the use of square brackets as nested, stating that "Square brackets are used to indicate editorial replacements and insertions within quotations".

You may consider this a small point, but that does not mean that others will do so. As you have said you will not respond, I will re-edit the article again, and try to meet your standards, even if they are not necessarily the same as my or Wikipedia standards. Curved Space (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Flogging frame" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Flogging frame. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 4#Flogging frame until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Ass-whuppin'" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ass-whuppin' has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 10 § Ass-whuppin' until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone check this

Vandalism 211.27.78.133 (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

innapropriate pictures

I feel like the first picture and the first picture in school punishment and the punishment at home sections are innaprorpriate Snappercat (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. 12:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC) UrielAcosta (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Recent Rewrite Using Pro-Spanking Review

I believe that the recent edit by User:Zenomonoz has added an undue preference of the POV of one group of pro-spankers who wrote a single review. It appears to me, though a non-expert in spanking children, that this change to the article may constitute giving undue weight to what appears to be a fringe view in the developed world. BirdValiant (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

That isn’t undue. What is a ‘non-expert in spanking children’? Are there experts in spanking? Academic psychologists use methodology to test causality. It’s mainstream social science. Lots of stuff is claimed causality without any quantitative scientific assessment. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Academic psychologists using methodology to test causality consistently come to a different conclusion than this one. If a climate change research analysis came to the conclusion that less than 1% of climate change is actually caused by human activity after all and that all previous studies done on it were that seriously flawed, we should consider it a fringe view indicative of bias and not cite it. ~2025-40621-75 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)