Talk:Spanking, a misrepresentation of the Bible by Conservapedia

Apart from the fact that this has also totally borked the namespace set up, is it really necessary to have this, at all? Is it just a copy of some parodist work that was but now isn't on CP? 14:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've added a 'delete' template. Maybe we should have a serious article about corporal punishment and religion but this is certainly not it. Bob Soles 14:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And the bulk of the material indicates that the author *ahem* knows what they're talking about. 14:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. The anti spanking site (s)he references - or would if they had done it right - is a serious site linking corporal punishment to child abuse. The point (s)he's making, by referring to a letter on that site, is that by spanking your child you may be sexually arousing her which is, if the spanking is meant to be non abusive, not the desired result. Bob Soles 15:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. Soles, please read Ann's Letter to Parents ( http://nospank.net/ann.htm ) before you delete the page. If by "it lacks goat" you mean that the page lacks sarcasm then I agree. The sexual abuse of children is a serious matter and it should be addressed in a serious (not sarcastic) manner. GaryBollyns 15:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gary, I have read it and couldn't agree more with the sentiments of the posting. I'm a strong supporter of the anti-spanking campaign and would normally be in full throated support of articles like this but - and here comes the reason for deletion - this article loses its message because it's aimed at Conservapedia, not at spanking and as it aims at the wrong target in my view it misses both. As I said above, maybe we need an article about corporal punishment and religion - something to put that old chestnut of 'spare the rod, spoil the child' to rest for ever and ever - but this is not it.
 * Please feel free to rewrite the article - then I'll support it wholeheartedly. Bob Soles 15:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least it's in the wrong namespace.--BobNot Jim 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. (although I should clarify that point above, those two larger paragraphs in the middle seem to me to be all about the mechanics of sexual stimulation via spanking in an vaguely perverse manner). I'll bung corporal punishment up on the To Do list. 17:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So let's send it to CP for now? On another point - who cares what the bible says on this issue, or if Conservapedia's interpretation of the bible is different to that of somebody else? Since when was the bible of all things a source of guidance to sane modern people on issues like this anyway?--BobNot Jim 17:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest moving to "spanking" & removing the anti-Conservapedia stuff. It would also allow room in the article for other stuff related to the subject (BDSM, etc.) We probably need an article on corporal punishment too, but since this text relates very specifically to one form of punishment, it should probably stand alone. 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That works as well.--BobNot Jim 18:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya. Anyone actually have any strong opinions on the subject? 18:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think corporal punishment would be a good article title rather than spanking. Oh, and I also think this one is a mess and should be mercy-killed.  18:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I just went and read Ann's letter. What tripe...  18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by "tripe" I mean it's anecdotal "evidence", and there is nothing in her story to prove that her "perversion" was a result of those annual (ritual?) spankings. She also falsely asserts that no adults enjoy spanking. 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? 19:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will support: Delete. or Move to CP (where people who care about CP can debate it.) or Rename it and overwrite with something sensible about corporal punishment. But let's make it go away somewhere.--BobNot Jim 19:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was possible, but this edit made it even worse. Shall we draw lots for who shall delete it?  Because there's nothing worth saving here.  19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we just CUR it and stick the turd in the author's userspace? 19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Naw, we were just trolled, and we vaped. Bye bye trash.  07:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)