Talk:Grounding (discipline technique)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL · .edu · .gov

January 2007

Low quality article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.210.30.198 (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Very. Some sources wouldn't go amiss. --Ross UK 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm made major changes -- it sounded very pro-spanking and continually empathised the alleged "ineffectiveness" of grounding. The lack of sources is regrettable, but in my opinion the information is correct and commonplace when the punishment is imposed. --Jatkins (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Spanking article -- very substantial information on the contrasting topic. I think that this article should be expanded as well, to keep Wikipedia information on child discipline neutral point of view. --Jatkins (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a basis for a good article.

People on here have said that it is a bad article. If you feel it is bad why don't you try to make it a good strong source instead of calling it bad or low quality.

To who ever made it i think that it is good but dose need some sources but i don't know how to do them yet. Maybe my adoper can teach me ;-). Alec1990 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could merge it into a big article about types of child discipline instead. Or would that not provide enough info? 76.235.182.216 (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

gdf

needs workIAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

"If and when grounding is imposed, it can often be for a period less than or greater than one week."

Less than or greater than one week? That doesn't mean anything. Should proabbly change it. 65.78.144.140 (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Anybody know what they called this before the invention of the airplane. It obviously takes its name from the act of prohibiting a pilot or aircraft from flying. (grounded=kept on the ground)98.157.211.148 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)JC360

"Being kept in", I think. Alarics (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Does adding this make sense?

I added a sentence that mentions that some teenagers may be inclined to become more unruly if they are grounded because they see it as "unfair" or a "childish" form of punishment imposed on them, and that this can lead to rebellious behavior. Is this addition too biased? Is this addition not appropriate for this article in some other way? 76.235.182.216 (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Natural authority or not

When a parent for whatever reason does not have a natural authority over the child then physical force, like locks would be needed. Can this be added? Andries (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Add new section of causes of grounding

It needs to have a section with why parents ground you for any type of improper conduct, otherwise cheers. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparent copyright violation

This edit is an obvious copy-paste from an unnamed sourced. I have reverted to the prior version, per WP:DCV. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Adults getting grounded

For a short time, the article's introduction talked about people who have reached the age of majority (adults) being grounded. My argument is that legal adults are emancipated from parents and other adults and do not have to listen to a word they say. Some parents have a set of rules for newly-adult children to follow if they still live at home, however, if adults were grounded, that would mean they were grounded by other adults, and I thought it was generally agreed that teenagers become adults' "equals" and "peers" when they reach the age of majority. I can just imagine a hypothetical scenario between a married couple where one spouse prohibits the other from going out. Odd, isn't it?

With somebody who's legally a child, grounding is obviously for disciplinary purposes, but if an adult told another, legal adult, that they were disallowed from going out, I believe that at least in the United States that would constitute false imprisonment. Wikipedia's article on false imprisonment says that it is defined as "a person intentionally restrict[ing] another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification[,] or consent." What some people consider justified, and what some don't, varies widely, so that may be too difficult a statement to be interpreted for the purposes of improving the article, and should probably just be removed from the latter article altogether; I think for the purpose of Wikipedia the definition of "justification" is a "gray area".

The only exception to this that I can think of would be if a legal adult lived at home and had the mental age of a small child (i.e. intellectually disabled.) There may be others.

Though it might seem like I'm getting defensive or "rambling", I just find the notion of adults "grounding" other, competent people who have reached the age of majority absurd. I'm going to remove it and I wanted to give notice so it was not re-added like it was last year when I tried to make the same edit. If somebody feels it should be re-added, please present your argument here. The brave celery (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Why I re-added the 'In popular culture' section

I will run with the premise that Geek.com on its own is not enough.

"Fan-made parodies of cartoon shows depicting characters such as Caillou, Dora the Explorer and Little Bill getting grounded have gained millions of views on YouTube."

Sinar Harian quote establishes: there are videos with millions of views on YouTube depicting Little Bill getting grounded and Caillou getting un-grounded.
MovieWeb quote establishes: there is a YouTube parody series that involves Caillou getting grounded, that had a degree of internet popularity.

Therefore I believe it's okay to say that there are parodies that depict characters such as Caillou and Little Bill getting grounded, with millions of views on YouTube. Geek.com's dedicated coverage corroborates all of this (the only thing only mentioned there is additional characters). This is not an attempt at vandalism, I think it's reasonable to briefly mention this in the article. JSwift49 21:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49: The "Internet Gutter" source has to go in any case: I don't know much about the Texas Free Press, but I think that they may be a self-published source or blog or one with insufficient editorial oversight. I continue to believe that they are not notable, considering that it attracted problematic editing prior, and all the sources you used (apart from the aforementioned two which appear to be WP:SELFPUB) are effectively WP:SYNTH. --Minoa (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not understanding why the Geek.com source needs to be removed. Mediabiasfactcheck.com says Overall, we rate Geek.com as Least Biased based on minimal reporting of politics and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record. (D. Van Zandt 9/7/2019) updated (07/30/2024). It is marked as "High credibility" and as having not failed any fact checks. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/geek-com/ What evidence is there that the article is WP:SELFPUB?

Couldn't find much about Texas Free Press (have removed). JSwift49 00:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Even reliable sources have opinion sections that require a higher level of caution. Another example that falls under WP:RSOPINION is the Guardian's "Comment is Free" section. See Talk:Vyond#Why can't grounded videos be added onto this page? for why we said no to the Geek.com post. --Minoa (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems similar in format to other Geek.com articles I saw on the archived front page. [1] If Geek.com overall is considered reliable, what evidence is there that this particular article qualifies as self published? It doesn’t read to me as an opinion article and it’s not labeled as such or as a guest post. JSwift49 01:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Asking @NatGertler: for second opinion on this, partly because of MBFC's RSP entry. --Minoa (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

MBFC is not functionally useful. I will opt out of making any judgment on the Geek column due to my having a past financial relationship with the author, but I will note thatif you go to the archived copy and click through on the About at the bottom of the page, you'll find that he was listed as a "features writer" for the site at the time. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't aware re. MBFC; thanks. I don't consider 'features writer' a negative here. Feature journalism is still factual journalism, just takes a different format. [2] Pulitzers are awarded for the category, and looking at the winners, they are not opinion articles nor self-published. [3] So if Geek.com as a whole is not self-published, I don't see a reason to categorize this particular article as such. JSwift49 13:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

There are still other factors in my opinion that affect notability of popular culture things. In my opinion, the whole Vyond thing is too niche or too trivial for inclusion (WP:IPCEXAMPLES), a far cry from the popularity of Steamed Hams, the latter of which received substantial coverage. I personally think it is best to leave it out for that reason. --Minoa (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

References