Chamberlain-Hunt Academy, Does strange punishments according to WP Options

[Alarics]

Alarics speaks!

[...] He's been drinking the Wikipedia Kool-Aid and he's a liar. He does own the corporal punishment articles and has slowly edit warred with others who have disagreed with him.

Now the question is, how will Wikipedia deal with him?

I wasn't going to bother to come on here, but I am not going to stand idly by while people accuse me of being a liar. There are no lies in what I wrote. There are no lies in anything I have ever written. I don't do lying.

You really don't do your case any good by throwing wild, unsubstantiated libels around. If you think something I have written is untrue, specify it and we can discuss it.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying I "own the corporal punishment articles". I was a prime mover, with the agreement of other editors, in reorganising them because they were previously an incoherent mess. I started "school corporal punishment" and "corporal punishment in the home" and "judicial corporal punishment" as spin-offs from "corporal punishment". I did not write anything like all the text. Much of it already existed. Naturally I do not claim any proprietorial rights over these articles. If anything User:Gabbe watches them more closely than I do. He introduced the corporal punishment template, which has helped create an identity for a linked family of sites. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with any of this. It has all been entirely transparent. Nobody has ever objected before.

All editors get into disagreements with others occasionally, but I have not engaged in any sustained edit-warring. I have never broken the 3RR rule.

Kindly desist from your personal attacks.

[A Horse With No Name]

There are no lies in anything I have ever written. I don't do lying.

Okay, then be honest with us -- if you came home and found Newyorkbrad in your bathroom, luxuriating in a lavender-aloe bubble bath while singing aloud the score of "Camelot," how would you react?

(Things like this do happen, trust me.)

[Alarics]

There are no lies in anything I have ever written. I don't do lying.

Okay, then be honest with us -- if you came home and found Newyorkbrad in your bathroom, luxuriating in a lavender-aloe bubble bath while singing aloud the score of "Camelot," how would you react?

(Things like this do happen, trust me.)

Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. I've never heard of Newyorkbrad. But if I came home and found *anybody* in my bathroom, I should call the police.

[Lar]

All editors get into disagreements with others occasionally, but I have not engaged in any sustained edit-warring. I have never broken the 3RR rule.

Kindly desist from your personal attacks.

A couple of points:

1. 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement and not breaking it isn't the same thing as never edit warring
2. This isn't Wikipedia and WP:NPA doesn't apply

Hope that helps. Because if you don't keep that second point in mind you tend to get flambe'ed here. Me, I'm glad you turned up to talk about this matter... you may want to review the whole thread.

[A Horse With No Name]

Me, I'm glad you turned up to talk about this matter...

Thanks, Lar. I love participating in these discussions.

I've never heard of Newyorkbrad.

You never heard of Newyorkbrad? Have you been living under a rock?

[Cedric]

I've never heard of Newyorkbrad.

You never heard of Newyorkbrad? Have you been living under a rock?

Not necessarily. It is probably because Brad has no interest in BDSM, and accordingly is not a part of that "community". Sometimes being "boring" is good, or at least, just as well.

[Alarics]

I've never heard of Newyorkbrad.

You never heard of Newyorkbrad? Have you been living under a rock?

Not necessarily. It is probably because Brad has no interest in BDSM, and accordingly is not a part of that "community". Sometimes being "boring" is good, or at least, just as well.

I also have no interest in BDSM. That's nothing atall to do with the matter in hand.

[*]This isn't Wikipedia and WP:NPA doesn't apply
[/list]
Hope that helps. Because if you don't keep that second point in mind you tend to get flambe'ed here. Me, I'm glad you turned up to talk about this matter... you may want to review the whole thread.

I know this isn't Wikipedia, but a modicum of civility would not come amiss in any setting. And by the way, I have already read this whole thread, much of which is unreasonable and rather absurd, as I have already noted on WP under Talk: Paddle (spanking). You, incidentally, have not replied to my request on that page that you provide evidence for your assertion that I have been "reverted by a large number of respected editors". You ought to withdraw that, as requested by User:Redvers.

[Achromatic]

I've never heard of Newyorkbrad.

You never heard of Newyorkbrad? Have you been living under a rock?

Not necessarily. It is probably because Brad has no interest in BDSM, and accordingly is not a part of that "community". Sometimes being "boring" is good, or at least, just as well.

I also have no interest in BDSM. That's nothing atall to do with the matter in hand.

Forgive Cedric, he doesn't understand the nuances of that whole subculture. That Corporal Punishment fetishists fervently deny interest in BDSM, despite the "D" of Discipline, that "Goreans" fervently deny interest in BDSM, that everyone likes to pretend /their/ particular kinks and fetishes are altogether pure, highbrow, good, and rational, and fear losing some semblance of self or identity by "merely" being lumped into an overarching category.

[The Joy]

Alarics speaks!

[...] He's been drinking the Wikipedia Kool-Aid and he's a liar. He does own the corporal punishment articles and has slowly edit warred with others who have disagreed with him.

Now the question is, how will Wikipedia deal with him?

I wasn't going to bother to come on here, but I am not going to stand idly by while people accuse me of being a liar. There are no lies in what I wrote. There are no lies in anything I have ever written. I don't do lying.

You really don't do your case any good by throwing wild, unsubstantiated libels around. If you think something I have written is untrue, specify it and we can discuss it.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying I "own the corporal punishment articles". I was a prime mover, with the agreement of other editors, in reorganising them because they were previously an incoherent mess. I started "school corporal punishment" and "corporal punishment in the home" and "judicial corporal punishment" as spin-offs from "corporal punishment". I did not write anything like all the text. Much of it already existed. Naturally I do not claim any proprietorial rights over these articles. If anything User:Gabbe watches them more closely than I do. He introduced the corporal punishment template, which has helped create an identity for a linked family of sites. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with any of this. It has all been entirely transparent. Nobody has ever objected before.

All editors get into disagreements with others occasionally, but I have not engaged in any sustained edit-warring. I have never broken the 3RR rule.

Kindly desist from your personal attacks.

Wikipedia rules do not apply here. Wikipedia Review is an independent forum separate from Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation and maintained by Wikipedia critics.

Are you or are you not Colin Farrell of corpun.com? Are you a noted scholar on corporal punishment? Where's your curriculum vita if you are?

You are obsessed with including details of corporal punishment on several school institutions like Chamberlain-Hunt Academy and not bothering to put any reliable sources to substantiate your potentially libelous claims. I don't give a care if something is "common in the rural South" or "common in Singapore." In academia, any statement that makes someone look at and go "Really?" requires the author to provide evidence. You are not doing so. You have not been doing so. Why do the details of if and how a school spanks its students even necessary in an encyclopedia? I'll give you the answer: it is not.

You've been warned by long-time good editors, Fran Rogers (Krimpet here) and Lar (Lar here) as well as good faith IP editors about your edits and you have dismissed and reverted them. Your dismissive attitude and arrogant manner is no different than most Wikipedians. You have no idea what real world implications your edits can cause for these institutions, do you?

[The Joy]

Also, why is it that Wikipedia and corpun.com are the only sites I can find that stated (corpun.com still states it) that CHA does pants-down paddlings and a poem on Deviant Art is the only "reliable source" backing this information? Why did you add this information, especially without sources?

As I stated earlier in this thread, you would think that if something like that was still occurring in 2009 that there would be more media and public notice.

[Alarics]

Also, why is it that Wikipedia and corpun.com are the only sites I can find that stated (corpun.com still states it) that CHA does pants-down paddlings and a poem on Deviant Art is the only "reliable source" backing this information? Why did you add this information, especially without sources?

Most of the punishment information added in that edit was from the school's own cadet handbook, and the admissions form, both of which are available to anybody on line, and for which I did, in fact, contrary to what you imply, cite the references. It's obvious from those that the school makes paddling a very significant feature of its regime, and is quite upfront about it, so the only point at issue is the "pants-down" information that comes from the poem. (The poet in two places makes quite clear what he means - "we hear wood on skin", and "with my ass hanging out").

I still think the poem is a fairly reliable source (if you read the whole thing, it's clearly documentary in intent), but I now agree that it may not be a Reliable Source according to the strict WP rules. When I added that in, I had only just started on WP so I was not so familiar as I am now with the WP:RS policy and the very rigorous way in which some people (though not others) wish to interpret it. Now that the point has been challenged with reasoning given (as opposed to just deleted without explanation), I have not attempted to restore that material. I now regard it as "true in fact, but not sufficiently verifiable for WP". It also occurs to me now that the situation might have changed in that particular respect since the poem's author was at CHA, so maybe I was wrong to put it so uniquivocally in the present tense.

Some of the other information that has now also been removed from the article, on matters other than corporal punishment, was fully backed by references (especially from the school's own cadet handbook), and ought to be restored.

As I stated earlier in this thread, you would think that if something like that was still occurring in 2009 that there would be more media and public notice.

No, not for a small private school in rural Mississippi where clearly nobody has complained. Such things get into the papers when parents complain about them. In this case, CHA parents are presumably happy with the policy. Certainly as far as corporal punishment generally is concerned they are made well aware of the situation before they sign up. I think you are allowing your own opposition to corporal punishment to get in the way of an objective view. All I am doing is stating facts.

[Alarics]

Wikipedia rules do not apply here. Wikipedia Review is an independent forum separate from Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation and maintained by Wikipedia critics.

I'm perfectly aware of that. I am still entitled, in any forum, to ask people to desist from making personal attacks on me.

Are you or are you not Colin Farrell of corpun.com? Are you a noted scholar on corporal punishment? Where's your curriculum vita if you are?

I have made clear that I am he. I am not an academic scholar and have never claimed to be. I am a "noted scholar on corporal punishment" in the more general sense that I have been studying and researching the subject for decades, and running a serious factual website about it for 13 years. You seem determined to misconstrue my position. Please read the "about this website" page at http://www.corpun.com/expl.htm .

It's clear that you personally find the subject distasteful. That is your right, but it is neither here nor there in dealing with the facts.

Your dismissive attitude and arrogant manner ...

That's pretty rich after what you have written, I must say.

[The Joy]

The handbook mentions corporal punishment, but never goes into detail. The one interview I did find with CHA students discussing their treatment stated that no clothing was ever removed and that the punishment was done in private (unfortunately, I found this on a spanking porn blog and this would definitely not count as good academic or Wikipedia reliable source). I believe the poem is wrong. We have no information on the poet's identity or if he even went to CHA let alone whether he witnessed or participated in a pants-down paddling. There simply is not enough conclusive evidence to say CHA administers corporal punishment pants-down. Online resources do not seem to provide any indication. You would need published memoirs, forms, journals, etc. about CHA in which the punishments are detailed. Until such information is accessible to us, no one can say anything about how the school metes out corporal punishment. A poem and a registration form are not good enough in either academia or Wikipedia. If I used a poem and registration form to argue that a school engages in pants-down paddlings, my professor/teacher would have flunked me. They would have told me that the sources are inappropriate and insufficient to back my thesis.

Under Wikipedia rules, you cannot come to your own conclusions (WP:OR) or engage in original research.

I did find forums and blogs discussing the supposed pants-down paddling policy of CHA, but they always quoted the Wikipedia article or corpun.com, both of whom hinged their information on that Deviant Art poem. Do you not understand how your misinformation has now spread and caused possible harm to CHA's reputation?

As for my personal views on corporal punishment, I mentioned them earlier in the thread. I don't like seeing children being punished, but I recognize that mild/moderate corporal punishment done with the dignity and well-being of the child in mind can have a place as an acceptable form of punishment. I do not consider pants-down paddlings/spankings to meet that definition.

If in my attempts to confirm your edit that CHA does engage in pants-down paddling I did find sources proving it, I would have been personally disgusted that such a form of corporal punishment continues in the U.S., but I would have likely left you alone. But even if I did find such reliable sources (by real-world and Wikipedia standards), I would still have criticized you for not citing any sources per Wikipedia and academic rules.

I don't like being this forceful, but I have seen you add detailed corporal punishment information to other school articles without independent reliable sources. Even if you are right, you need sources and the more the merrier. These schools should be treated fairly and not be libeled, regardless of any editor's stand on corporal punishment. Bali ultimate (T-C-L-K-R-D) appears to be trying to do just that.

I have no problem with your non-corporal punishment edits, the ones I've seen at any rate.

[EricBarbour]

Oh, oh, you don't like the "incivility", do you?
This is not Wikipedia, where you can get your critics silenced, eh?

I did some of my own research about Chamberlin-Hunt, as well as some of the other schools with WP articles, in which you keep inserting your demented stuff about schoolchild "discipline". Your "interest" in this subject is amazingly deep, profound and dare-I-say-it, obsessive.

Now, since CP is a sexual fetish of some repute, your "professional interest" in it goes a lot deeper than mere academic study, especially since I see very little on your website regarding the validity of corporal punishment on improving behavior (which has been questioned many times).

This list is just plain disturbing, especially given that some of the people listed therein are still minors at this time.

Is there a link on your site to this article, I wonder?

In my sincere and independent opinion, you are a raving nut, Mr. Farrell.
Or whatever your real name is.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 30th December 2009, 11:14am

[Alarics]

Now, since CP is a sexual fetish of some repute, your "professional interest" in it goes a lot deeper than mere academic study,

That is a complete nonsequitur! You seem to think that, just because you disapprove of it, corporal punishment cannot be a proper subject for inquiry, research and debate. That is obvious nonsense.

especially since I see very little on your website regarding the validity of corporal punishment on improving behavior (which has been questioned many times).

That just goes to show how little time you have spent looking at my website. There are several links to such studies and to anti-c.p. campaigns, as well as others taking a different view. Numerous archived news items quote the views of people on all sides of the argument -- e.g. school principals who think that CP does help in managing behaviour, others who disagree, and so on. Opinions differ widely; I for my part do not have to take a particular view, and even where I do, that's not the primary purpose of the site. In fact the site is not intended to be primarily about pro vs. anti, of which there is plenty elsewhere on the web; it is primarily a neutral collection of (mostly historical) facts that are in the public domain but in many cases not otherwise available on line.

This list is just plain disturbing, especially given that some of the people listed therein are still minors at this time.

I fail to see how it can possibly be "disturbing" when these are all items published in mainstream media sources, clearly with the participation of the individuals concerned, and all of an entirely non-salacious nature. Everything there is in the public domain. However, since I have no desire to cause any offence, I've now removed from the list the few people who are currently still under 18.

Is there a link on your site to this article, I wonder?

No, not that particular article, I think, but there are links to other articles and studies by Murray Straus, all of which say pretty much the same thing. If people want to access a more comprehensive library of anti-CP rants, there are well-known websites (all likewise linked from mine) where they are easily to be found.

In my sincere and independent opinion, you are a raving nut, Mr. Farrell.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. I don't have the impression that it is widely shared.

[A Horse With No Name]

I don't have the impression that it is widely shared.

You do impressions? Cool! Can you do Humphrey Bogart?

[The Joy]

I hope, Alarics, that you remove the information from your website about Chamberlain-Hunt Academy giving pants-down paddlings. This misinformation has been spread out on several forums and blogs throughout the Internet due to your website and your edits to CHA's article.

Since you haven't responded to my criticisms above, I take it that you are done defending your abhorrent actions? I could care less about your compilation of corporal punishment articles, but your ability to synthesize information and come to conclusions needs work. You really need to consider how your actions can hurt people and institutions like CHA.

[The Joy]

I hope, Alarics, that you remove the information from your website about Chamberlain-Hunt Academy giving pants-down paddlings. This misinformation has been spread out on several forums and blogs throughout the Internet due to your website and your edits to CHA's article.

Since you haven't responded to my criticisms above, I take it that you are done defending your abhorrent actions? I could care less about your compilation of corporal punishment articles, but your ability to synthesize information and come to conclusions needs work. You really need to consider how your actions can hurt people and institutions like CHA.

See also this poem by a former student at the school, which makes clear that the paddlings were, in his time there, delivered "pants down", and gives other details of the modus operandi.

http://www.corpun.com/usscr2a.htm#mississippi

But... Alarics... a poem is not a reliable source in academia. You don't even know if the poet even went to CHA. He could be exaggerating. He could be lying. You don't know! Have you not read anything I have posted here?



Oh, whatever. No one can control what misinformation you put on your darn website (unless CHA decides to pursue legal action against you and I hope they do).

Many Wikipedians are now scrutinizing and following your edits now (thank you and Happy New Year, Bali ultimate! ). I believe that you've learned nothing from this and will be dragged through Wikipedia Arbitration, indefinitely blocked, or banned before the year is over.

Sigh.

[Alarics]

See also this poem by a former student at the school, which makes clear that the paddlings were, in his time there, delivered "pants down", and gives other details of the modus operandi.

http://www.corpun.com/usscr2a.htm#mississippi

But... Alarics... a poem is not a reliable source in academia. You don't even know if the poet even went to CHA. He could be exaggerating. He could be lying. You don't know! Have you not read anything I have posted here?

My website is not "academia" (neither is Wikipedia, for that matter). I altered the wording on my site to take account of the fact that the poem is set in the past. Since you're still not happy, I've now changed it again to spell out even more clearly that the information in the poem may be out of date.

It's quite clear to me, reading the whole poem, that the poet did indeed attend CHA. He has all the details right about "The Porch" and so on. It's clearly a "documentary" sort of poem rather than a "flight of fancy" sort of poem. I realise now, as I've said before, that a poem does not count as a "reliable source" for WP, but it seems perfectly reasonable for my website to mention it, and readers can form their own judgement. In the unlikely event of CHA wanting to sue anybody for libel, the person who wrote the words is the poet, not me.

Anyway, Wikipedia Review is for discussing Wikipedia, not my website.

I believe that you've learned nothing from this

How can you say that, when I have made so many changes to meet people's concerns? Not only that, I would have made them earlier if people had come to me in the first place over particular edits.

I don't have the impression that it is widely shared.

You do impressions? Cool! Can you do Humphrey Bogart?

What an cretinous and pointless comment.

[Alarics]

You've been warned by long-time good editors, Fran Rogers (Krimpet here) and Lar (Lar here) as well as good faith IP editors about your edits and you have dismissed and reverted them.

Completely false. Let's take Fran Rogers first.

She raised the matter of Maris Stella High School with me on my talk page on 21 December:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ala...ons_to_articles

Before that, I had reverted the removal by Arpingstone of the CP information. Arpingstone was engaged upon some major clean-ups of many Singapore school articles, cutting down a lot of bloat, and I had no quarrel with most of his edits. (I had more than once myself removed bloat from this and other school articles earlier.) For the other schools he edited, he left the CP information untouched, and it seemed to me that in the course of ploughing through the Maris Stella article, for which his edit summary was "Mission and Vision statements are not acceptable in Wikipedia (any school in the world could write much the same)/many other edits and deletions for unencyclopedic style", he had perhaps on this one occasion inadvertently thrown out the CP baby with the trivia bathwater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=327345356

On 17 December I restored the short paragraph titled "Major offences" but I did not revert any other part of Arpingstone's many changes. It is true that this paragraph, although I knew it was true, cited no source, but then neither did anything else in the whole article apart from two points in the introduction and one alumnus. If you look at the article now, that is still the case. (In this respect, the article is no different from a vast number of school articles in Wikipedia). So I probably thought that, if Arpingstone was happy with the general lack of sources in the article, it was all right to restore one small bit of what he had removed, even though it had no source. Had his removal of it been a specific challenge to that one paragraph, rather than a small part of a big sweeping-away of clutter, I would have discussed it with him before restoring it.

After Fran Rogers message to me, I did not make any further changes to that article. You are entirely wrong to say I dismissed her and reverted. You need to be more careful about the allegations you make. I replied to her on my talk page, the point at issue being the unsourced nature of much of the material in a great many school articles, and the fact that she hadn't realised that public caning is quite common in Singapore schools so could not be called a "serious allegation" (quite a lot of schools there, though admittedly not this particular one, say themselves in their online information that they do public caning). She didn't reply to me further after I had stressed that point. Nevertheless, as I say, I did not revert again after that exchange, since I couldn't find a WP:RS for it. This is another example of where you are quite mistaken in alleging that I take no notice of anyone. Contrary to what you seem to think, I am a reasonable person and always amenable to discussion.

Turning to Lar, his original comment was nothing to do with articles about schools. He never contacted me directly, again contrary to your assertion. What he did do was to claim, falsely, on the talk page of Paddle (spanking), that I was "editing against consensus" in the matter of a claim that CP in American schools takes place mainly in the South. This intervention came immediately after he had made a rather bizarre edit to that article (for which he was subsequently criticised by Redvers) in which he deleted information that was not only correct and uncontroversial but sourced to an article in the New York Times, normally regarded as one of the most reliable sources there is. In passing, he delivered himself of the view that www.corpun.com is not a reliable source, despite the fact that the link in question (about private schools in Florida, as an example of Southern practice) was not to any comment or opinion by me but only to the list of school handbook links, which is merely a collection of transparent links that anyone can instantly verify.

All this seemed particularly odd in that the only phrase objected to, "mainly southern and rural", had not only not been put there by me, it had been part of the article for almost four years. It seemed to me manifestly true and uncontentious, so when an anonymous editor changed it to "Many parts of the United States", I reverted (I left all the anonymous editor's other edits to the article unchanged).

I made these and various other relevant points on the article's talk page in response to Lar. Ripberger then arrived and complained that "mainly southern and rural" was not the what the NYT article said (the exact wording of the latter was "particularly in rural parts of the South and the lower Midwest"). This seems to me to be nit-picking of the first order. Lar then came back and claimed that "mainly in the South" was synthesis and not acceptable (but, again, it was not I who wrote that phrase in the first place).

Lar went on to allege that I had "been reverted by a large number of respected editors", a grotesquely false accusation, as Redvers then pointed out (Lar did not respond to this, nor has he made any attempt to substantiate his wild assertion). The discussion then went off at a tangent about linkspamming, which is a separate matter from what we are debating here, and I defended myself against various unreasonable charges, and so far that is where the matter stands.

The main point for our purposes here is that I did not revert Lar's edit (my only subsequent edit to the page was on another point entirely), even though it still seems to me misconceived. As a result, the article now still says "Many parts of the United States", which is not factually wrong but is rather misleading.

In sum, then, neither in the case of Fran Rogers, nor in the case of Lar, did I dismiss them and revert their edits, as you allege.

This post has been edited by Alarics: Fri 1st January 2010, 1:08pm