do you have the ISBN numbers for these books? --Roguebfl 11:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- only Shepherding a Child's Heart would have an ISBN
Advocates of rigid methods of child-raising
- John Harvey Kellogg (1852-1943, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg)
- Daniel Gottlob Moritz Schreber (1808-1861, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Gottlob_Moritz_Schreber)
- John B. Watson (1878-1958, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson)
Spankart 23:03, 26 April 2008 (BST)
Not exactly how I would chose to form balance. Having two seperate pages with 100% contridictory information and claims that the other doesn't exist. Especially when its so emphatic as to say "Religion is 100% Pro-spanking, no exceptions." and "All psychological evidence points conclusively that spanking is the way to go." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobM (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC-4)
- Well we could theoretically merge the two articles into one which presents both things. Or we could also write a third article that talks about the dispute and the arguments presented from both sides. But that would become rather long and hard to read. And it would also duplicate a lot of facts that have already been presented on the existing articles.
- The purpose of an article named anti-spanking is definitely to present the point of view from that camp. And likewise the purpose of an article named pro-spanking is to present the point of view from that camp. An article named spanking and religion is the right place to present both pro- and anti-spanking points of view that relate to religion. --Spankart (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2009 (BST)
- Yeah, but both are full of contridictory evidence about the same thing. Both do, (Or at least should) indicate that there are christians on both sides saying the bible either forbids or endoreses CP. There are muslim scholars who will quite litterally fight to the death over the concepts that the Qur'an and Islam forbids or endoreses beating disobediant wives. I've seen two 'scholars' actually come to blows over the later!
- At the very least create a template message at the top of the page in purple (Like the deleted tag) to indicate that information on this page is contridicted by information on another page. Like a 'Academic BIAS' tag. To present knowingly contridicted information on a page and forbid the article to reference that leads to obvious result: People putting words in the mouth of our Wiki. RobM 14:50, 2 October 2009 (BST)
- We follow the NPOV principle in this wiki. Points of views are not presented as facts but as attributed POVs. Therefore while a particlular view may be biased, the article is not. And no information in one article is contradicted by information in another article because both are true, as they are attributed POVs. In my opinion we don't need a "disclaimer" next to every attributed POV to inform readers that there exist opposing POVs. For practically every view in this world, there exists an opposing view. It would be the same as putting a "Warning: the existence of God is doubted by atheists" label in an article about Christianity or Islam. It is not wrong, but it is inappropriate and it is off-topic.
- But if you feel that pro-spanking and anti-spanking are special sensitive cases, I suggest we should use a warning box that covers not only religious but all arguments of the dispute. Something like:
- That template, would be perfect. As for the rest... you arn't writing about people, you're writing about groups and stating in a wiki what their beliefs are. To enlarge your analogy of god and athiests, an article that stated all human beings are christians, would be wrong, same as an article which states all christians agree the bible comands you to spank would be incorrect. It's been eighteen months since the boyscouts thing and I wonder if either of you yet grasp the fundemental basics of the lessons which should have been learned or the power of words when relating to children and presented on a wiki. Regardless of intent of the words it's important to be clear when an article is putting words in the mouths of whole groups or is written as if it represents 100% of the members, especially when other members have an ideologically opposed view. I still think its very dodgy to have an article that contains known contridicted info and is forbidden to note that. RobM 12:47, 3 October 2009 (BST)
- No article in this wiki states "all christians agree the bible comands you to spank". Such a thing would be exactly the opposite of the NPOV principle which we follow. We do not put words into the mouths of the group of Christians -- what sentence made you think so? The topic of this particular article is the pro-spanking group. In this article we list some of the arguments that people from the group of pro-spanking activists use. And this list includes, among others, religious arguments. The way we currently word it in this article is good NPOV as far as I can see. We do defintitely not give the impression that christianity supports spanking, if that is what you seem to fear. A uses B to argue for C. This is different from saying B supports C. Because D uses the same B to argue against C. So we say nothing about what B "really" supports (and we can't and shouldn't). We say something about A and D.
Trumbull is highly controversial for unrelated reasons, being the past president of the ACPeds, which was founded as a protest to the AAP's support of adoption by gay couples, and it has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for "pushing anti-LGBT junk science". Thus, he may not be the best person to quote. There is also a link to ACPeds directly at the bottom.