Talk:Collective punishment

rename article

This article should be called something like 'Acts of collective punishment throughout history'. It contains no relevant information about rights or laws that protect against collective punishment in the modern word, nor any of the various definitions for the term under the law.

Vendee

You could add in something about the guerre de la vendee http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonnes_infernales The first democratically sanctioned genocide

POV

Sus scrofa: Please stop inserting unbalanced anti-Israel POV. "Unambigious" and "clear cut" are unambigious and clear cut indications of an anti-Israel POV, as is eliminating any indication that pro-Israel people consider "collective punishment" an anti-Israel code word while maintaining that pro-US people consider it an anti-American code word, the latter being a far more questionable statemtent. Any critical mind looking at the article would see the tenor of language and realize that it is not reliable as is. I'll try to rework the language to make it more balanced, but please take your anti-Israel stance to a discussion board (e.g., here) rather than hashing it out on the article page. Calbaer 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting the mention of proportionality (political maxim), since collective punishment can be proportional in the sense of the proportionality (political maxim) article. For example, taking hostage a family member of a terrorist might be the most effective way of achieving a military objective, but it is often considered collective punishment. Even in the sense of proportionality in war, the Japanese American internment was proportional, as it led to the deaths of fewer people, led to the injuries of fewer people, and affected fewer people than Japanese attacks on American interests. Yet it too is often considered collective punishment, and for good reason. Thoughts? Calbaer 22:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

My thought is that you're a stupid fucking shithead and hide your neoliberal agenda behind a veneer of "neutrality." Any discussion of gaza that doesn't discuss israel's many warcrimes and its unquestionable use of collective punishment is by definition not neutral and not reliable.

---

Actions have to satisfy several criteria in order not to be considered collective punishment. It is possible to fit the rule of law and still be collective punishment. If you want to make the argument that the "rule of law" in war is the Geneva Conventions and that covers proportionality, then at least you have an argument. Otherwise, proportionality is a main criteria for collective punishment. What about Hussein's killing citizens in Dujail after an assassination attempt? As a dictator, he is law. However, what he did to some citizens was not proportional. It also fails our understanding of "due process" (although that has taken quite a hit lately with the problems the US has discovered with due process).

Your examples of proportional actions are flawed. What I understand you to say is that anything goes so long as it achieves some military goal. Most likely, you don't understand the concept as used in, for example, the Geneva Conventions. This concept has nothing to do with "most effective way of achieving a military objective," or "cost fewer lives." Instead it reserves rights to noncombatants (in the real sense, not the way the US currently uses the term). If someone from my city kills a general, it is "reasonable" to expect some inconveniences, such as short detentions or curfews, etc. If we are beaten while being arrested, mostly likely noone would raise a fuss. If the army cuts off the water, electricity, gas, sewage, etc. to the entire city permanantly, or doesn't lift the curfew periodically to allow for citizens to get supplies, then there is probably a problem with proportionality. Whether or not that is a good tactic to get the assassin is irrelevant. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I'm not sure what the above contribution has to do with whether or not collective punishment is never proportional. It does state that collective punishment is consistent with rule of law, but that argues for a change to the text, not the topic I had brought up. I am using the concept of Proportionality (political maxim) as linked from the prior version of the article, and this has no reference to the Geneva Conventions. This may be flawed, but if so it should be fixed. I understand the point that collective punishment can violate proportionality. What I am asking is if anyone feels, as per the prior version of the article, that collective punishment must violate proportionality.Calbaer 03:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you come up with any real examples of collective punishment that don't contradict proportionality? The two examples you presented don't work. The first is not an example of collective punishment. The second certainly violates proportionality (punishment of the Japanese were out of proportion to their "crimes"). Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 11:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be a collection of facts proven to be true, not a collection of claims not proven false. If you believe collective punishment always violates proportionality but do not provide any argument for this claim, I can't convince you otherwise. Regarding family punishment not being collective punishment, according to this very article (especially earlier versions), punishing family members of terrorists is a form of collective punishment. Again, if you feel that there are claims made in the article that are flat-out wrong, fix them. And the crimes of the Japanese government by 1942 were far greater than action taken by the U.S. against Americans of Japanese descent. Yes, Japanese-Americans were innocents, but that's the point of collective punishment: It harms innocents. (Also, once again, proportionality as we're using it does not agree with the link formerly in the article. If someone wants to start proportionality (war), that might be useful.) Calbaer 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should be a collection of facts proven to be true, not a collection of claims not proven false." I have no idea what you mean here. You had presented some "examples" where something was supposedly collective punishment but was also proportional. Unfortunately, they are fatally flawed. I suggested that you might possibly rethink them. It looks like you don't want to. That's OK. I have no intention of moving in on your turf. I simply added what I know about collective punishment and the Geneva Conventions (mainly the 4th), but I have no agenda to push, so I'll move on. Cheers. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that there was a time when Britain or Germany or the US freely used the term "collective punishment" instead of doing it and pretending it is something else. I added some examples of official collective punishment. Certainly there are more, but these I found in the New York Times historical files. In 1914 authorities on the laws of war as they were formulated then said that collective punishment was the only recourse when, say, a partisan sniper shoots a sentry in an occupied country, since the occupiers were unlikely to catch the shooter who will be concealed by the populace, even if the saw him do it. Some said the problem was when you burn the village as a reprisal, you just create 100 more shooters.Edison 05:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Detectable POV going on here

Someone has made repeated use of uncheckable clips from the New York Times as proof that the English used communal punishment in places like 1920s Palestine, Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus etc.

None of the actions of the English in these places resulted in the huge backlash from the population that the actions of other powers have frequently done (eg post-1967 Palestine, Vietnam, Iraq, Chechnya etc).

Either the English were as so nasty that the technique worked (as it did for the Nazis) or else what they were doing was considered proportionate and "fair" to other civilians in the region.

If the latter, then it's not the well-recognised crime of "communal punishment" (whatever themselves called it). MalcolmKing 20:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing "uncheckable" about news stories in the New York Times. Historical newspapers going back to the 1850's are available on microfilm in many public libraries and college libraries throughout the world. Most public libraries will provide these through interlibrary loan if they do not presently have them in their own collection. They are also availble online for a fee through Proquest subscription, for instance [1]. There is no Wikipedia policy allowing the deletion of reliable sources satisfying WP:A just because they are not handy for you to look at online free. Very few scientific or medical journals are free online either, nor are most copyrighted books. Edison 15:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Collective punishment & Israel -- recent edits

My recent edits, which were consistently edit-summarized, have been reverted solely on the grounds that "actually [previous version] is more NPOV". Perhaps I have not explained myself thoroughly enough. I will do so phrase-by-phrase.

• "supporters of the Palestinians" to "human rights groups".

Clearly both have talked of collective punishment, but it's more notable and important that human rights groups have. One would expect Palestinian supporters to criticize Israel regardless, so it doesn't mean much. The fact that human rights groups have said the same thing is more informative.

• "use the term to refer to" to "described"

Both mean essentially the same thing, but the second is more readable. If "described" is viewed as too sympathetic, "criticized" or "condemned" would be acceptable. Using tangled language on behalf of Israel's critics might have the effect of downplaying their claims.

• "the Israeli policy of destroying the homes of alleged terrorists" to "the demolition of houses which the Israelis claim are related to terrorism, resistance, or smuggling activities"

The Israeli house demolitions are NOT limited to terrorists; in fact, the policy of destroying bombers' homes is probably a propaganda device to obscure a much more widespread and ongoing policy of punitive demolitions. In particular, Israel has demolished homes in Gaza on the basis that they are, or might be, termination points for smugglers' tunnels. They've demolished homes in West Bank and Gaza on the basis that their military forces have received fire from those homes, although firing on soldiers engaged in military operations is by definition not terrorism. Attempting to limit the discussion to homes of terrorists masks broader issues. In fact, the version I created is STILL somewhat POV towards Israel, because many house demolitions are conducted with NO officially stated reasons at all; just an administrative order by military authorities, and a gunpoint 30-minute-warning in the dead of night.

• Rephrasing quotes from the Geneva Conventions as claims and counter-claims, made by anonymous "Palestinians" and nebulous "others", with additional "cite needed" tag.

The particular interpretation and application of the conventions is open to dispute, but not the wording itself. "Citation needed" is insult to injury. The article reads as if we don't know whether or not the Palestinians even made these allegations!

If the "citation needed" tag is meant to apply to the "policy of systematic destruction" part, then this is more sensible. Widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure is an indisputable fact which I can cite; the "systematic" nature, and whether it is a "policy", may be open to dispute but should at least be reported as allegations.

In conclusion, I would appreciate at least SOME attempt to document and discuss edits, rather than giving the appearance of "reflex" reversion of all edits which might be seen to impugn Israel.

Eleland 02:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert you (yet), but I want to give a response anyway:

• For the first point, I'd prefer, "critics of Israel's actions" or a list of specific organizations. Anyone can declare himself a supporter of Palestinians or a champion of human rights. Say what the person or organization indisputably is, either by action (e.g., "critic") or name (e.g., "groups such as Amnesty International and Fatah"). If you want to give an example of a human rights organization condemning an action, cite an action and give the name of the specific organization. Your phrasing for this is particularly poor, since the nebulous "human rights groups" violates the spirit of WP:AWW, and saying that "they" specifically object to anything in particular is silly, since "they" is too broad to begin with.

• "X use the term to refer to Y," is more descriptive, because it implies verbatim use of the term, as well as its use as a code/power word. "X describe Y as collective punishment" would also work, though it would soften the tone a bit; whether this makes it more or less POV is a matter of opinion and can be taken on a case-by-case basis.

• If it's more than just terrorism, say, "homes suspected of being used in military and terrorist actions against Israel." And if some homes are being demolished without any stated reason, cite an instance in which a home is demolished and no stated reason was offered, and say that's what happened. "Resistance" and "smuggling" are fairly nebulous words compared to more descriptive phrases like "military actions," "offensive military actions," "defensive military actions," and "weapons smuggling."

• Which quotes were rephrased? They should be stated verbatim in order to help avoid POV. And clearly Geneva Conventions need not be cited if described, although a reference tag always helps avoid confusion. For example, some people might not know the difference between the Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol I.

By the way, you reverted many of the things I wrote — without discussion — claiming NPOV where that was highly, highly debatable, and inserting your own POV. It's rather unfair to cry foul when someone else alters/reverts your changes without discussion after you alter/revert mine without discussion.

In any event, it's important to keep NPOV on this, since, not only are Israel-Arab conflicts some of the most intensely debated conflicts of our time, there are drastic POV issues in most media sources. Calbaer 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea; come up with sources, and then we'll work from what the sources say. As it is, the vast majority of what you changed was unsourced. And you're quite right, we don't even know if Palestinians have made those allegations. Finally, you left out some of the changes you proposed. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Are the embargoes on Northern Cyprus a form of collective punishment

I am thinking that stopping direct trade, no sporting or other cultural links, which results in far worse conditions in the north, because of the actons of the various other powers (Republic of Cyprus/Greece/Turkey) is an act of collective punishment. Should it be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.245.111 (talk • contribs)

It seems a poor example and is totally unsourced, being just your opinion. It should not be included, barring any reliable sources. Calbaer 04:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs more information

There are many more modern instances of Collective Punishment in the world than Israel/Palestine. I believe that the article needs more of these for the sake of balance. I have endeavored to add a few today. Please help with this.

As it stands today I believe that at least a part of the article has been commandeered by people seeking to use it to push an anti-Israel point of view. I have tried as best I can to ensure that both sides of the argument (whether Israel's actions are or are not collective punishment) are represented fairly. ForeverFreeSpeech (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Palestinians say that it's collective punishment; the Israeli's say that it isn't. Every single human rights organization, including the Israeli ones, which has looked at the charges, conclude that it's collective punishment. Neutrality here does not mean 1:1, that's false balance. Labeling groups like HRW and Amnesty as "pro-Palestinian activists" is totally inappropriate. On every other subject, they are taken as reasonably evenhanded and neutral observers - I noticed you added HRW reports on China, for example, without attributing them to "pro-Tibetan activists." <eleland/talkedits> 07:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF? "reasonable and evenhanded" - this the same HRW and AI I know of, who regularly bitch and moan in countries that have free speech but barely raise a whisper about countries like China and Iran and Saudi Arabia who beat people up just for showing a cross necklace?

To play devil's advocate, it appears that agencies like Human Rights Watch are also noted as being biased against Israel: Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch#Allegations_of_anti-Israel_bias[2][3] [4] [5]. There's also the fact that the UN human rights councils all spend an inordinate amount of time on making anti-Israel pronouncements and their memberships are very stacked with nations that are hostile to Israel. [6]

Therefore, it may be reasonable to question whether, while they are reasonable and reliable sources for the most part, their analysis and pronouncements in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are skewed and not reliable for the purposes of the section in question. M1rth (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Eleland, it would be helpful if you were to list specific items you have a dispute with on the edits or here in this discussion. As I look at your mass reversion, there are things unrelated to Israel/Palestine but relevant to the article that you remove, and since you remove at least 500 bytes of information (net amount), your claim of "mass removal of sourced information" and your dispute over whether the human rights organizations are "pro-palestinian" (see above as I play devil's advocate) indicate you have some issues. The presence of a userbox on your page in support of hezbollah also makes one worry that you have a WP:COI issue with this article. I would like to remind you to remain WP:CIVIL and refrain from mischaracterizing your edits as you do nothing but increase the temperature of the disagreement when you do so.

Specific items it would be helpful for you to justify in regard to this diff:

1. the removal of "and totalitarian regimes" from the first paragraph. I am sure that both Bahrain and China, at least, can be described this way and there appears no reason to remove this from the article.
2. "the demolition of homes which Israel alleges are used by terrorists as military assets" changed to "the Israeli policy of destroying the homes of alleged terrorists." It appears to me that the prior wording is more neutral.
3. "Israel's extensive system of internal roadblocks and checkpoints in Palestinian land has been condemned as a form of economic collective punishment. (with two sources appended)" - The IHT source only says "Palestinians charge the hobbling of their movement... is collective punishment." In the Haaretz article, the only mention of "collective punishment" is by someone posting in the commenters section, not in the article itself. Neither of these sources appears to meet the stringent WP:NPOV and WP:RS standards.
4. Line 34 - in relation to the Geneva Convention, it appears here it is you who is removing a great deal of sourced information.
5. ", especially as Palestinian groups normally target civilian buildings or transportation (such as public busing, restaurants, and nightclubs where population density increases the number of civilian deaths) rather than military assets." Probably needs a secondary sourcing.
6. Line 50 - ]] or otherwise connected with organized crime - what issue did you have with this? As the drug trade and organized crime are mixed together this edit seems reasonable to me.
7. *Fourth Geneva Convention (article 33 specifically forbids collective punishment, article 28 prohibits using civilians to protect military assets/personnel) (bolded section you removed): why did you remove this? It would appear to have relevance so long as the Israel section is present, and there probably is room in the article for a general section (NOT mentioning specific countries) on whether "collective punishment" is negated by one party's use of civilian neighborhoods or persons in an attempt to protect military assets.

It would probably go a long way towards civility in this article if you would explain these edits. I have no doubt that you probably do not mind some of them but in a fit of WP:COI reverted much more than you otherwise would, given the poisonous nature of the Israeli/Palestinian debate. M1rth (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Inevitably, groups associated with one of the sides in a bitter conflict will see neutral and widely respected groups as "biased" against their side. It just too obvious a ploy to label any neutral evaluation as "biased" so it can be discounted or removed. The criticism of Human Rights Watch presented above is sourced to the Anti Defamation League, the Jerusalem Post, and the Israeli Defense Force, all of which clearly can be expected fo have a biased point of view. The material cited to Human Rights Watch should stay and should be counted as an independent and reliable source. Ditto any references which might be found from such sources as the UN, the Red Cross, or Amnesty International. Edison (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure I can agree with you. The UN faces a large amount of condemnation, particularly for putting human rights abusers on its human rights councils and for the lopsided voting structure. This is especially true since "special sessions" have been held numerous times to make some pretty outrageous claims against Israel, and yet it took the UN more than a year to even take up the question of what was happening in Darfur.

The Red Cross has been very biased in creating the Red Crescent subshoot, while not allowing Israel's emergency medical personnel (the Magen David Adom) to join for 57 years (they first applied in 1949 and were only allowed to join in 2006). There have also been numerous documented incidents of Red Cross vehicles being used as transportation vehicles by the Palestinian side as well as propaganda tools. Amnesty International seems highly anti-Western in general - as evidenced by its failure to condemn the mockery that was the 2001 UN conference in Durban.

The underlying problem with this is that even while an organization's leadership may make a claim to be unbiased, the information that they are getting from the Israel/Palestine area cannot hope to be unbiased. They are as vulnerable as anyone else to emotional attachments, "fudged" reports, and outright lies. The Israel/Palestine situation is a poisonous atmosphere, and so I am very careful when viewing reports on it even from sources I would otherwise find trustworthy and I think you should do so as well. Normally, HRW/Amnesty International would be considered reliable, but in this case all sides need to be triple-checked or more and their biases accounted for.

The other problem is that while many of these groups are "international", Israel is one nation surrounded by a large number of hostile nations, and thus we have a severe problem if we fall into the trap of declaring that the Israeli groups responding to the biased reporting from these groups are themselves "less notable" or, more to the point, not worthy of having their side represented in keeping with WP:NPOV.M1rth (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the Israeli/Palestinian conflict issues be discussed in this article?

I believe that the presence of the Israel/Palestine section in this article is a detriment to the article, getting in the way of making the article better since so many edits pass through its lens. I will list a few points:

1. - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The "Israel and the Middle East" section is nearly 1/4 of the article's length, and is (at the moment) at least somewhat tilted against Israel. There are edit wars in the article's past, mostly surrounding this section.
2. - There is an unfortunate tendency on Wikipedia for users trying to push one POV or the other in regards to Israel/Palestine, to try to make a battleground out of every article which can in some minor tangential way to be said to be "related" to the conflict. I believe it is in the best interests of Wikipedia's growth to contain this as much as possible so that (quoting User:Mastcell) the "noxious atmosphere which pervades Israeli-Palestinian articles on Wikipedia" does not spread further than it already has.
3. - There is a separate article, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to which the issues probably fit better. The entire section could easily be replaced with a link to an appropriate section on that page.

I believe that point #3 is the best solution to prevent edit warring on this topic and make this topic easier for editors to improve. M1rth (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woahoah. Even a cursory glance at the sources will show that Israel/Palestine is by far the most frequently discussed case of alleged collective punishment - and that the sources are "tilted against Israel" in the same manner that this article is "tilted against Israel." Sometimes neutral treatment of facts reflects very poorly on one side or another, because the facts themselves are not "neutral" in the sense of 1:1 correspondence between two sides.

That said, I agree that the article is probably bent out of shape by disproportionate focus on Isr-Pal, but it would be way off base to eliminate any mention. With respect, I don't subscribe to "containing the damage" of internal Wikipedia conflicts by introducing arbitrary limits on article content. Not only will that not work for Wikipedia, it's an abdication responsibility to our readers.

This may be a similar situation to House demolition, which used to devote a lot of weight to Isr-Pal, to the detriment of a broad historical analysis. The solution there (thanks User:ChrisO) was to spinout most of the Isr-Pal content into House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while leaving a summary and link in the main article. <eleland/talkedits> 07:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that not what I just suggested, spinning the content out to Israeli-Palestinian conflict and leaving a link in this article, rather than have this article be yet another poisonous Israel/Palestinian POV-pushers battleground? Also, regarding Sometimes neutral treatment of facts reflects very poorly on one side or another, because the facts themselves are not "neutral" in the sense of 1:1 correspondence between two sides. - I refer you to above, where I was able to find a number of sources that fit reliability and indicate that the various sources you mention are themselves biased in this instance. Regardless, this is yet another reason to try to keep such a conflict off of this page and in the sector of Israel/Palestine articles where it belongs. M1rth (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with M1rth, the accusations against Israel can be in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, if they aren't already. A brief pointer to that article can then be placed in this page. 6SJ7 (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine by me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 February 2008

• From RfC: I agree that a separate section and several paragraphs puts way too much weight on the one conflict. A few sentences and a link to the appropriate article would be better. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As Per Consensus of this RfC, I have moved the section to Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Collective_punishment. M1rth (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Israeli/Palestinian conflict - irrelevant

The headline of this article is of a very general subject. Since most of the Article's contents are about The history of Collective Punishment, it should be general. The capacity and nature of information about a state's Collective Punishment should be equal to another, and a single state's one cant be bigger than or equal to that of a hole century (Let alone a section about a conflict that deals with one side of it). It is unproportional, unprofessional, and by doing so you are being sympathetic to a certain state and its history, making the Article Opinionated, political and journalistic, not informative as encyclopedia should be. I recommend all state's examples should be removed until edited on an equal basis.--Bob1969 (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WTF? The most discussed example of collective punishment of our time isn't worth mentioning in this article? This is a good example of why Wikipedia is almost totally worthless in this area. Grace Note (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The example being 'The most discussed of our time' is not a fact, but an opinion which you share. The fact that it is the most discussed in the Media doesnt and shouldnt serve as a basis for writing and editing informative (Encylopedic) Articles. Reasons: my previous post. --Bob1969 (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is no way to measure this, but you must accept that an overwhelming majority of RS and international organisations refer to the Israel's actions as collective punishment. If you can find other examples of collective punishment supported by multiple RS, you are welcome to add them in the article. --386-DX (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The article in general

The article seems to be an aspect of the Geneva Conventions. Using it to label conflicts that occurred before they were in place seems excessively revisionist and in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Wouldnt it be better just to link the individual articles on the topics to this page so that people might make up their own minds? The article seems to give an excessively brief treatment of the topic at hand but has a very long list of examples. I dont know enough about the topic personally but Im sure someone does.Savonneux (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Narrow scope of article

This article is too heavily focused the citation of large scale historical example of the phenomenon. There an absence of the role of collective punishment generally within cultural contexts. The use of collective punishment within, for example, eduction systems may seem trivial when compared the scale of atrocities afflicted across nations but this belies it's significance in terms of it's social and psychological impact.

Also there is no acknowledgment on the on the removal of civil liberties by governments in order to combat perceived threats. This form of collective punishment is probably the most historically significant. Fourisplenty (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Violation of international law?

It would seem this is a popular social control method, especially in Europe, from medieval times up to recent times. Which is to say in use under (state) law. Since when has it become against international law, eg. crime against humanity, violation of laws of war, etc.? Can citations be found for this view? Int21h (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions

Do international sanctions (e.g. the west's current sanctions on Iran over its nuclear enrichment) constitute collective punishment? Some have argued that it does. Matt2h (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Collective punishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070709020049/http://www.am.gov.lv/en/latvia/History-of-Occupation/briefing-paper4/ to http://www.am.gov.lv/en/latvia/History-of-Occupation/briefing-paper4/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420175950/http://www.ahtg.net/TpA/baltstat.html to http://www.ahtg.net/TpA/baltstat.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806104429/http://www.volgagermans.net/volgagermans/Volga%20German%20Deportation.htm to http://www.volgagermans.net/volgagermans/Volga%20German%20Deportation.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015035819/http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/statshist.html to http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/statshist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703013842/http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Syria+army+bulldozes+houses+Sunni+Muslim+areas+collective+punishment/7187238/story.html to http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Syria+army+bulldozes+houses+Sunni+Muslim+areas+collective+punishment/7187238/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert

here I restored appropriately sourced information regarding the kin of terrorists killed by US forces in recent air strikes. The reverting editor, who does this over several pages whenever the subject is the US failed to note that the phenomenon is already cited earlier on this page to define US actions (in the 20th century). Further, while advising me to address the talk page, he reverted without giving any argument at all for the removal. POV pushing, as it stands.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The two sources you've provided for this edit (1, 2) are both opinion pieces, not journalism. And neither of them mention the words "collective punishment" or even address the topic by any other name. As I explained in my edit summary, this doesn't belong here. Bradv 17:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If you believe that you should proceed to gut the article. From top to bottom most of the sources added by numerous editors lack the words "collective punishment".You say the sources don't even 'address the topic by any other name'. This is diametrically opposed to your weird arguments at Sippenhaft, which is the German word for kinship liability (another name for the same thing). Go any check through the sources. If you eliminate everything here that fails your criteria as stated above, I'll take you as editing in bona fide. If not then you are defending a nationalist interest.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You are the one who cherry picked sources. This is from the article:

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[8] Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time," stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.[8] Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs commented on the airstrike: "Maybe he (Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki) should've had a more responsible father."[9][10] To say that it was collective punishment fails to use sources wisely, and shows perhaps your nationalist interest. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC on US drone strike

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is a US drone strike that killed the child of a suspected terrorist, added here, an example of collective punishment? Bradv 20:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Not collective punishment as the Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki points out (notice of course that Nishidani didn't include those refs) the death was not targeted, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[8] Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time," stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.[8]

Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Omit – no one was seeking to "punish" the family member. No more so than in any other war where families and/or civilians suffer and die. – S. Rich (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Omit Collateral damage, yes. Collective punishment, no. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong Its WP:OR the source doesn't even mention the words collective punishment.So we can't include it anyhow.--Shrike (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong It's WP:OR, it's also what USAF calls 'Collateral damage', better known to mere mortals as a 'fuck up'. .... BTW What is the logic (or source) for the killing of the Russian Royals being 'Collective punishment'? Pincrete (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Disruptive This tendentious editing borders on disruptive. How could "collective punishment" be unintentional? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Omit collateral damage is hardly new, and while tragic, no evidence seems to suggest family member death was intentional. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Omit - the sources simply don't say this (i.e., it's OR). Fails on its face. And "Mintpress News" is not a reliable source in any case. Neutrality^talk 06:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Omit. Neither of the sources cited by Nishidani support this claim. There is no indication here that a family member was deliberately targeted, and no indication here of indiscriminate group-targeting. The critical point is targeting intent. A police officer isn't a villain if he aims at a violent individual and accidentally hits a baby. Alsee (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Snowball - This does not require a survey of editor's opinions. Neither source provided appears to use the term at all to describe the events. The addition is a best WP:SYNTH and at worst both synth and blatant WP:POV. TimothyJosephWood 15:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

The sources Nishidani provided is mintpressnews, which is not a RS, and an opinion piece from the Atlantic, again not a RS. The article itself, quotes senior US officials who say that it wasn't a targeted killing. It's not clear why we need an RFC when the sources clearly don't agree with Nishidani. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Collective punishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64HKWGqzR?url=http://ukrhistory.tripod.com/page-20.html to http://ukrhistory.tripod.com/page-20.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010301223347/http://www.rel.ee/eng/communism_crimes.htm to http://www.rel.ee/eng/communism_crimes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

US is conspicuously absent

Internment of Japanese citizens in the United States. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More, I would imagine. MultiPoly (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Slavery in the US is replete with examples. Tulsa and similar events also come to mind. KetchupSalt (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Football supporter clubs

Supporter clubs are often collectively punished for the actions of single individuals, in an effort to get the clubs to self-police their members. Examples are numerous. For example this paper describes how the throwing of fireworks onto the field in the 2014 KNVB Cup final (the so-called Fireworks incident) resulted in the Ajax supporter club being fined 70,000€ and its supporters and supporters of PEC Zwolle being banned from any future Ajax-Zwolle games the following three years. Similar incidents have occurred in Sweden. Malmö FF in a similar incident was fined 800,000kr (80,000€) by UEFA. KetchupSalt (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES

I have added the ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement template as parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict. It is obvious which parts. This means that editors who want to edit that content must be extendedconfirmed. If they are not extendedconfirmed they should submit an WP:ER and someone will handle it. Following the WP:EDITXY advice is a way to increase the chance of the edit request being accepted. Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Application to websites

Does this topic apply to websites? Because Discord appears to have a policy of banning by association for serious crimes. Sources: [7]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9rOLaH5dJs [8]https://www.reddit.com/r/discordapp/comments/svbyzp/can_you_get_banned_for_association/

Or would that be more appropriate on Discord's page? Wiimeiser (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)