Talk:Sippenhaft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Several issues[edit]

I'll be editing this article based on the responses or lack thereof.

  • I'd like a source that East Germany practised any type of kin liability beyond interrogation of associates.
(Interjection) It was well known practive to blackmail family members of Rebublikflüchtlinge into service for the Stasi. Usual threats were loss of job, flat, place at university, etc. There was of course no legal liability, backed by some law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.72.195 (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
"It was well known ..." is not a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.114.179 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add North Korea, probably the only country that actively pursues this policy today as a part of their legal system.
  • I'd like to remove the red guards for they were an internal, autonomous radical revolutionary group in China. That is they represented a threat to power to the CPC, not a part of their power structure.
  • (A suggestion) Is the fact that you can be detained for family debt a type that fits here? It's practised in many muslim and even some western countries in certain conditions.
  • Most improtantly: I'd like the (search)term to be changed to "Kin Liability". Nazi Germany was neither first nor last to practise this. Or I'd like all references to any other country moved to Collective Punishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.34.174 (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added and sourced the info on the North Korean "3 generations of punishment" system. It's far more prominent than the other sippenhaft systems. --ConCass (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In German, the term is used in two quite distinct meanings: One is the illegal, inhuman Nazi-/communist-style collective punishment (which probably ought to be moved there), the other the (ancient) legal principle of (financial) liability for parents and other next-of-kin. When the latter is refered to as "Sippenhaft", that´s usually deprecatory, meaning to move it into the direction of the former. --129.13.72.197 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong translation[edit]

Sippenhaft(ung) can in no way be translated to "blood guilt", which would be Blutschuld in German.

Also, the connotations native Germans would get for Blutschuld are unrelated to the (il)legal practice of Sippenhaft described in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.46.131 (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Only a "democratic" practice[edit]

Hi!

Sippenhaft was NOT legal during the Third Reich. The killing of relatives was a random practice and effected under martial law because the family of resistance members were seen as a threat.

On the opposite some elements of medieval Sippenhaft, as a part of German penal practice (the legal term, however, is "analogous penalty" or "penal analogy"), were re-introduced only as late as during the mid-seventies. The bizarre thing about this is that there is practically no possibility as a parent to defend oneself against a charge based on the crime committed by your teenage child.

The teenage child is technically not the defendant and therefore not allowed to say that the charge is wrong, neither are the parents able to defend themselves against a charge that was actually directed against someone else.

(Interjection) Where did you find this utter bullshit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.72.195 (talkcontribs) 03.32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Best regards

Someone who knows--Preceding comment added by 80.141.226.28 (talk) on 1 September 2007

'Someone who knows' is quite right. The Wikipedia article fails to make clear that, although the family members of officially disliked or criminal persons in the Third Reich were arrested, they were not executed, as the article erroneously implies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.12.3 (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
No, they were not officially sentenced to death and executed, as there was no law to even actually allow their arrests. But quite a few of them got shot by some SS idiot who didn´t have the balls to just let them go when retracting from the enemy forces.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.72.195 (talkcontribs) 03.32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sippenhaft is currently practiced by Israel – 2008 comments[edit]

Sippenhaft is currently practiced by Israel, but only against Palestinians (not against Jews) in the Occupied Territories (demolishes homes of families who have a suicide bomber in their ranks - even if the rest of the family are moderates and are horified by the bombing). Sort of ironic, isn't it?, that Israel is following a practice of the SS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.119.134 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The CNN article cited in support of this does not mention, at all, punishment of families. It talks about knocking down buildings. If you want to relate that to sippenhaft, which is the arrest/detention/execution of family members, then that requires a considerable degree of synthesis to support it, which is against the original research policy. Orpheus (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It is cited using 3 different sources. Don't revert me again.
Sennen goroshi (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The three sources all suffer from the same problem - none of them talk about arrest, detention or execution of family members. Sippenhaft had nothing whatsoever to do with housing, and it's original research to include that in this article. Orpheus (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It is original research on your part to assume that sippenhaft is limited to detention/execution. It is a collective punishment.Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not original research. The article does not mention any form of collective punishment apart from arrest and, in some cases, execution. If you want to add a claim that's not already supported by references in the article, you need sources that link your claim to the subject of the article. Orpheus (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
some sources
http://www.gregfelton.com/middle/2004_05_13.htm http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/072808Avnery.shtml
To punish whole families for the acts of their children, much like the Nazi "sippenhaft." To expel the families from the city or to cancel their resident status. To demolish their homes. To take away their social insurance benefits, even if they have paid for them.
Yaffe responded by saying, in part: “In fact, the homes of suicide bombers are demolished as a measure to discourage other Palestinians from similarly blowing themselves up.”
I don’t suppose she’s ever heard of Sippenhaft—a term that describes the collective punishment the Nazis meted out to those suspected of working against the regime or harming its officials.
Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for coming up with some sources. Unfortunately they still don't back up the inclusion of Israel in this article. The first link, to gregfelton.com, doesn't even come close to being a reliable source. In particular, see WP:SPS on self-published sources and their reliability. The second link only mentions sippenhaft once, in the context of "a lot of proposals were presented". Proposals - not policy and not action. It also doesn't say what "punish" means, and this article deals exclusively with arrest, detention and sometimes execution of family members. If "punishment" goes outside that scope then the text doesn't belong in this article, it belongs in the parent (collective punishment). Orpheus (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a couple of concerns about the first source, however isn't it just a reproduction of a story found in a newspaper? that is what the credits just under the title seem to imply. I would like to find something more specific about sippenhaft though, something explaining exactly what it involved, at the moment I see no difference between it and collective punishment. Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
That's stretching the definition of newspaper a fair bit. It was written by Greg Felton, who is apparently a regular contributer to the opinion page of the Alberta Arab News. Opinion page articles: (from WP:V) Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact,
This article (i.e., the Wikipedia article on Sippenhaft) should probably confine itself to the historical practice that occurred between 1933 and 1945. Anything else is really just talking about other kinds of collective punishment. The entire last paragraph of the article could probably be moved to CP to keep this one narrowly focused. I've made some test edits to the lead to make the subset-superset relationship a bit more clear - see if you agree or not. Orpheus (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was just reintroducted in WW2 and was in use in Germany a long time before WW2. My opinion is that you are right, the examples I used belong in collective punishment unless a reliable source directly compares them - and yes, the current source might not be reliable. However I was under the impression that the article should refer to the German practice of sippenhaft - which has a long history. not just WW2 Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be a great addition to the article, if we can find some references about it. I can only find (with, admittedly, a pretty brief search) incidental one-word mentions of anything before the '40s. Orpheus (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion regarding Sippenhaft and Israel, and unless somebody can come up with some convincing arguments, I am re-including Israel in the Sippenhaft page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.186 (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Before you do that, you'll need some reliable sources showing that Israel practices what is described in this article. Please have a look at the core verifiability policy. Orpheus (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

part 2 – 2016 comments[edit]

It's sourced. And it's well known that Israel demolishes the family homes of terrorists, so if there aren't enough sources at present, quite a few more can be found. Whitewashing well known Israeli policy really isn't a good idea. As luck would have it, Wikipedia has a well sourced article on the subject: House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Rklawton (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: I see two methods Israel is using, touching the legal item of Sippenhaft. Both are mentioned in the article and sourced. In your comment you argue Demolishing the house of a terrorist punishes all of its occupants, yes, but that's not the idea of sippenhaft. Sippenhaft is actually punishing the relatives directly, not casting a wide net. The Israeli government argues that destroying the home of a suicide bomber aims at his/her family. Not the terrorist or home or unrelated people living in it. "Until now, the Israeli government had argues that demolitions deter attacks as bombers do not want to leave their families homeless." Source [1] It's exactly what Sippenhaft is about and how it was used during the nazi period in Germany. I don't like the compartment but lack other examples. The first method mentioned in the article also aims directly at family members. --Rabenkind (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with house demolitions and it is collective punishment. But it's not sippenhaft in the sense of punishing blood relatives for the crime of one. They don't bomb the houses of the relatives, just the house of the terrorist. Comparing israel to nazi germany is called antisemitism. I'm not saying they don't demolish houses, I'm saying it's not sippenhaft, and that's what you would need a reliable source for. In fact, this article probably should only talk about the term in germanic law, with links to related practices. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't seem to read my quotes. Again: "Until now, the Israeli government had argues that demolitions deter attacks as bombers do not want to leave their families homeless." Source [2] What is left unclear about the intention of demolition of houses? A government hopes, that a [insert a political catchy term] does not do what he/she intents to do since he/she fears for what the government would do to his/her family members. And, no, Sippenhaft is not an event once occurred in Germany. It's a juridical principal.--Rabenkind (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The german article is actually much better in this respect. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Happy you found a way to understand German text. Now try to understand the German source [3]. --Rabenkind (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is mistaken. Sippenhaft (guilt by association) is the principle that relatives share responsibility for a crime committed by one member. That is not found in Israeli law. The house demotions do punish all the inhabitants of the house, but not because the other inhabitants are considered to be guilty in any way. They are punished as a detterant, it's collective punishment, not Sippenhaft. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
That might be your point of view but is nothing but primary research until proven by reliable sources. And the sources I added seem to say the contrary. --Rabenkind (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Do the sources you added provide a different definition of sippenhaft? --Monochrome_Monitor 09:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Other examples punish relatives because they are believed to be guilty, not in rare situations as a detterant. Ie, liability among relatives in the qin dynasty was enshrined in law, and many punishments of varying severity were carried out to its effect. In Israel it's completely different, where a form of collective punishment affecting family members is used in one circumstance against individuals who usually aren't even subjects under Israeli law, thus it is not a legal principle but rather a military one.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
MM I noticed the AN/I discussion, and went there to help out in case you were being got at and needed some advice. I see Simon has done that, so I won't intrude there. I've now looked into this. By coincidence, I happened to read some days ago a remark by Uri Avnery on precisely this connection, before I noted the dispute. I think the other editor is correct, as was User:Sennen goroshi in 2008.
Apart from summary executions on the spot (justified or unjustified, these methods include the demolition of the family's home, to deter others, as well as the arrest of parents and other family members. Frankly, I detest these measures. They remind me of a Nazi term I remember from my youth: "Sippenhaft" ("kin liability”). It is barbaric.'(Uri Avnery, 'A Lady With A Smile,' Gush Shalom 13 February 2016)
Avnery is a particularly good witness to what any German with a sense of historical depth extending beyond the latest twitter controversies thinks. His family had to flee Germany when the Nazis took over, and took sanctuary in Palestine. German articles in the mainstream press have long mentioned the connection. In any case, the source already cited does not say that it is a military as opposed to a legal procedure. It says explicitly that the Israeli court has given the green light to Sippenhaftung ( Israels Gerichtshof erlaubt Sippenhaft FAZ (2002)). Of course Israel is not thinking of using Nazi precedent. The sippenhaft practices are based on British Emergency Laws (No.119) going back to 1945. Where the other analogy comes in is the way this is used against Palestinian, but not against Jewish, terrorists, meaning collective punishment of a family through home demolitions is ethnic-specific. Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sippenhaft is currently practiced by North Korea[edit]

But not mentioned in the article as of now. It is also a concept found in the Bible, e.g. Ex 20,5; Ex 24,6-7 and Dan 6,25. --Neitram (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added the info about the Korean system in, and sourced it. It's more prominent than the Communist systems, I don't know how anyone missed it. --ConCass (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't time to do this, but editors should consider looking up Iran as a state using sippenhaft punishments. They executed the entire male population of a village recently (villages are usually kith-and-kin groups, all intermarrying).Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
This should mention more about Japan and China too, I'll add it when it gets unprotected. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Trump and Sippenhaft[edit]

I removed the entry about Trump. Something being proposed by a candidate is not an actual example of Sippenhaft being used. This article is for actual examples of Sippenhaft in history and in current usage. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I see Nishidani has reverted, so can someone please explain how a proposed policy by a candidate vying for votes is listed as an actual usage of Sippenhaft? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah,everyone who reverts me is not biased. A candidate for the presidency of the most powerful state on earth who declared in favour of sippenhalf policies during his campaign, is self-evidently making a notable remark bearing on this topic. Nowhere on the page is there a rule saying one must restrict the evidence to acts rather than statements of policy. Whether he goes there or not is irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Except the list is only of actual cases of Sippenhaft. We don't include instances of candidate statements. Why are we doing that just for Trump? The list should remain as intended and understood, a list of Sippenhaft cases around the world. Trump saying what he might do, is not worthy of inclusion to this list. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Editing should not be an agony column. All that is needed is to tweak the 'modern examples' to make iot inclusive of modern proposals, and your objection falls. I've done so.Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
You then need to include others, not just Trump. As it stands now, it's undue, especially because it's a proposal by someone not in power. If we include in every article on Wikipedia proposals by candidates we'd run out of room. Putting this in, is just NPOV and extremely undue. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Where's your policy basis for this extraordinary additional claim? You fussed over a technical issue, so I made a correction. Now you say I must expand the text. Editors who wish to contribute to Wikipedia should lead by example, not sit round imposing conditions, and demanding efforts they themselves do not show any interest in exerting. If you want more examples of proposals start by reading the following: FRANK JORDANS Swiss Expulsion Proposal Draws Criticism The Associated Press (1 September 2007), editing it in, and then pursue the topic. I'm at no editor's beck or call. Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, in the real world there are proposals for any number of things that will never happen. This article is on things that did happen. We should not have any entry that is not an actual case of sippenhaft. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Here and on several other pages, you are simply asserting what you want, and ignoring the process of editorial consensus per policy considerations. The above is again a repetition of your personal opinion, nothing more.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
What consensus on this page? This is a list of cases of sippenhaft and nowhere on this page are proposed cases, except for one. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that putting Trump here is merely to be undue and non-neutral. As this is an article on usages of sippenhaft throughout history it does not make sense to include mere proposals. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I've answered you and you have consistently talked round the replies.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
You haven't answered me. Why should a page on usage of Sippenhaft have proposed usages? That is not how it works. This is an article on the usage of sippenhaft throughout the world. We should not include proposed. You haven't given me one reason why we should do so. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Either reread above or go to a remedial English school.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep it up with the personal attacks. It shows something of your character, not mine. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Inability to follow an argument or master elementary English is not a character defect. I made no personal attack. I drew your attention to the fact that, read correctly, the thread shows I have already answered objections you keep recycling as if they went unanswered. You can reply, but I won't be hanging round to continue this nonsense.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request :
Examples given in the article should be active examples, not just proposals made in passing, no matter how notable the person speaking is. Furthermore, neither of the sources given actually say this is an example of sippenhaft, although one of the article does mention the concept as it related to Nazi Germany. In my opinion, this sentence should be removed. Bradv 04:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I added the section "other examples" and I agree somewhat tentatively that Trump should be included, though I disagree with the mean comments. The difference between Trump and other cases is that he could very well act on his comments in the future, while if we were to write "John Adams threatened to tar and feather the families of the British soldiers who perpetrated the Boston Massacre", and he never did, it would not be notable, at least not here. Remember these are comments that Trump has made multiple times and he has never retracted them. Was it a comment he made while trying to get votes? Disturbingly, yes, and that should be taken into account. Will he probably renege on this "promise"? Yes, but it was also unlikely he would get elected and look where we are now. But I digress. I think we should keep it as is for the first hundred days of his presidency (and that's not drawing an arbitrary line, presidential historians consider the "first hundred days" a microcosm of a president's policy during their entire administration) and afterwards (assuming no family-killing happens) change it to something like "POTUS DJT said blah while campaigning for blah, and was condemned by foo bar". And who says we can't add threats of sippenhaft?--Monochrome_Monitor 23:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you include John Adam saying so? It's the same thing as Trump. And that is the issue. As I mentioned prior and as Bradv pointed out, this list should only include actual cases. Candidates throughout history said things to get elected. We don't include those items. Then, to include only Trump is undue and npov, and then you have as Bradv pointed out none of the sources actually call it Sippenhoft, but that is but a minor issue. I can almost guarantee you that Trump is not the only candidate for office to say things like this, so it is wrong to put it here. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether the John Adams example should be included, but we do need to keep the biographies of living persons policy in mind. These two cases are not the same. Bradv 01:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Sippenhaft policies are imposed everyday in the West Bank, open any Israeli newspaper and you will read that a family's house is to be demolished because one of its members was involved in terrorism etc - and have been so for several decades, but the word is rarely used in articles reporting these incidents, and therefore . . . Sir Joseph can feel happy that the fact that Sippenhaft policies are a weekly reality there can remain invisible. The distinction between a policy applied, and a policy proposed is arbitrary. What Trump proposed was a Sippenhaft policy, but since he hasn't yet enacted it, we keep mum? That is an utterly arbitrary distinction for excluding the fact registered. This has nothing to do with WP:BLP. Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
If what Trump proposed is actually a case of Sippenhaft, then it should be trivial to find lots of sources that call it that. It's not up to us to make that connection ourselves. Bradv 14:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani, did I remove the section on Israel? That's news to me. As for Trump, again, it's proposed by a candidate running for office and has no serious implication, other than being a BLP NPOV entry into an article. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Monochrom_Monitor's comment. In my view, the content about Trump is well-sourced, concise, and fully compliant with WP policies, including BLP and NPOV. Ijon Tichy (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It is UNDUE (therefore a BLP issue) and it goes against what this article is, a list of usages of Sippenhaft. A proposed sippenhaft is not sippenhaft. People propose things all the time, we don't include that in an article. The fact that only Trump is here is the UNDUE, NPOV and BLP issue. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention, poorly sourced. As I mentioned above, if this truly is a case of sippenhaft it should be trivial to find lots of sources that say that. Without those sources, this is original research. Bradv 20:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear SJ and Bradv, I think you may mean well, but your arguments are weak and your views have failed to convince me. In my view, the content is DUE, it is in compliance with BLP, NPOV and NOR, and very well sourced. I find the arguments of Monochrome_Monitor and Nishidani much more convincing than yours. Regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Tichy! You guys do realize my John Adams example was purely fabricated, correct? So please don't include it. I think the BLP notice on the article right now is incredibly stupid. It's called quotation, and it's not undue because this is an article on sippenhaft and his recommendation was clearly sippenhaft. If it were an article on, say, a mexican-american border wall, of course it would include his comments. Oh wait, it does! Mexico–United_States_border#Effect_on_presidential_election. Why isn't that a violation of BLP? Purely because it makes him look "less bad"? That's purely subjective.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, it's irrelevant. It's not going to happen and this will fade into history as yet another campaign snippet. This article is on actual usages of Sippenhaft not stump speech promises. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

British[edit]

The British have used Sippenhaft in their empire, and in the mandate area. That should be added as well. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The Israeli use of sippenhaft comes to Britain's example. If you think a text needs work on it, do some.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Original research?[edit]

I've flagged this article for Original Research, as it seems to be an unwarranted synthesis.
The article purports to describe Sippenhaft, which is a German term for the practice of punishing the families of wrong-doers as well as the offenders themselves, but then conflates this with a general description of the same practice in various other countries. This is a stretch, as the term Sippenhaft does not exist in English (it isn't in the OED or in Merriam Webster) nor is it a universal term for the practice. While the practice itself is not unique to Germany (it is mentioned in the Old Testament, and features in the death of the Roman, Sejanus) neither is the term Sippenhaft used outside Germany to describe it.
So, this article should either be restricted to explaining the German practice, or be moved to a title that does have a universal application: As this is the English WP, presumably use an appropriate term in English that describes the practice worldwide. Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You have a point. Much of the material here only has sense if included into the broader article on Collective punishment. But Sippenhaft(ung) is merely a subset of that, i.e. where 'collective' in 'collective punishment' refers specifically to the family or clan to which the person judged to be an offender belongs. It does not strictly mean 'family' in the modern nuclear sense'.
I might add that there are a lot of things that need fixing here. We have;

China historically adhered to the concept of liability among blood relatives, called luzuo (緑座)

This is comical. 緑座 'green platform/throne/seat' is an obvious error for 縁座 (or, less likely, the related legal term 連座), both of which, in Chinese, Korean and Japanese ancient law referred to collective punishment of members of a family/clan/ lineage. Someone dabbling here mixed up the character for green 緑 for the character for 'family relation' (縁) The same goes for the remark that this spurious 'green platform' = collective punishment of a family goes back to the Qin/Han period. It goes several centuries further back, to the Zhou period notion of 滅族 (miè zú) meaning 'extermination of the lineage'.
I think the proposal on the Collective punishment page suggesting this sippenhaft stub be merged there sensible. It would avoid the issue of WP:OR. We should set up a discussion and welcome outside opinion. At the moment, rather than fix the article, we are just getting nationalist defensiveness edit-warring on one section.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I am the dabbler. In my defense I posted a blurry bitmap of the character from a digitized book onto a reddit account I made for that purpose and I was told the character was "green". Also they look the same.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

This article is about the German concept of sippenhaft. The first half of this article describes the concept in detail, in German law, and as it has played out through German history. After this, there is a section titled Other examples of sippenhaft, which is where things start to go off the rails.

We cannot treat this concept as if it were a concept in English sources, and then compare various styles of collective and familial punishment around the word as examples of sippenhaft. This is where we run into trouble with the Trump story above—Trump is not proposing sippenhaft per se, as that concept doesn't really exist in English. What Trump is actually proposing may fit into the article collective punishment, as this deals with the concept in general, rather than the specific German concept of sippenhaft.

What I'm proposing is that we remove the entire content of the section Other examples of sippenhaft, and merge that content into Collective punishment. That article already includes some brief content about Israel, Russia, and other examples, and there is already a link in this article to Collective punishment.

Before being bold and just deleting that section, I'm hoping we can discuss this. Bradv 16:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, in general. This article should focus on German sippenhaft, the rest seems to be a duplicate of what's out there under collective punishment. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the modern stuff would probably be more at home at collective punishment, but the list of similar principles in medieval/traditional law could be kept here. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The rule is, articles are written according to sources. If the specific theme of 'sippenhaft' is adduced by reliable sources that add parallels or analogies, then it is an editorial obligation to include that material. If Juan Cole, an orientalist of distinction, likens a policy of economic strangulation of a people to Sippenhaftung, then it technically qualifies. If Donald Trump's call to take out the families of terrorists is likened to the policy of Sippenhaft, as it explicitly is in the source given, (John Fund, Trump’s Call to Kill Family Members of Terrorists Is Quarter-Baked National Review December 18, 2015) then no editor has a right to challenge this as inappropriate to the article: the subject is Sippenhaft, the source refers to the topic, and gives an example from Trump. It is immaterial whether he implements or doesn't implement the idea. He is on record as agreeing with the policy) Monochrome Monitor made a correct call. I endorsed it, as did IjonTichy. So far we have a very muddled 'third opinion' that shows no grasp of policy, and Sir Joseph. Obviously so far the weight of opinion is for restitution for the policy reasons given above. Editors can't be allowed to arbitrarily challenge the inclusion of material which good sources employ. That is a recipe for POV pushing. Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Just because a source says something doesn't mean it has to be included in an article. It certainly doesn't determine which article should contain that information. Bradv 17:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Besides which, including proposed regulations is not a policy issue it's a content issue. And I'm a little confused considering that Nishidani above stated, "I think the proposal on the Collective punishment page suggesting this sippenhaft stub be merged there sensible. It would avoid the issue of WP:OR." Sir Joseph (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Neither Bradv nor SJ have given one comprehensible policy reason for rejecting material that fulfills the conditions for inclusion (a) relevance to the topic (b) reliably sourced. Bradv.YOu have to justify excision of material that meets these criteria, and all you came up with is WP:BLP is bizarre, to put it politely.Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As you have been told several times, you need a better source to say that Trump is proposing sippenhaft. The only source you have provided which even uses the word, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428719/kill-terrorists-families-gangsta-trump, says:

But it was Nazi Germany that made Sippenhaft, or “kin liability,” famous in the 20th century. Heinrich Himmler, head of Hitler’s SS, told his deputies in 1944 speech that the ancient German Teutons had decreed harsh punishment for the family of a supposed traitor

This does not mention Trump in the context of sippenhaft, and therefore is inappropriate for inclusion on this page. Including this information is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:V, both of which are policies. If you find this bizarre, you need to take some time off and read The five pillars of Wikipedia. Bradv 18:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The Five Pillars do not specify that editors need to be able to read a passage of English correctly, but it is necessary to have that ability, which, in the silly comment above, is lacking. The author clearly and unambiguously likens Trump's position to the policies of kin liability/sippenhalf outlined throughout the page. I repeat. Neither you nor SJ have a policy-compliant rationale for challenging what 3 editors support as a reasonable use of a good source.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

eg

  • (1) Donald Trump’s latest idea is that the U.S. should kill the family members of terrorists. . . “The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families,” Trump said on Fox News earlier this month.
  • (2)”One could argue that going after the families of terrorists is itself a form of terrorism.
  • (3). If the Trump Standard is applied, the U.S. would be joining a sordid collection of regimes that have used collective punishment to stay in power.
  • (4.1)The most famous current practitioner is North Korea, where relatives of people who escape the Hermit Kingdom are often murdered or thrown into brutal labor camps where death rates are staggering.
  • (4.2)The Soviet Union routinely killed family members who had committed no crimes on their own, because they were “relatives of enemies of the people.”
  • (4.3)it was Nazi Germany that made Sippenhaft, or “kin liability,” famous in the 20th century. Heinrich Himmler, the entire clan was wiped out down to the last member. The American people are understandably frustrated and angry that threats of terrorism are looming over this country during the holiday season.
  • (5)As much as Donald Trump serves as a vessel for some of those fears, we should not follow his latest spontaneous proposal. Often, they are half-baked. In the case of using collective punishment against the families of terrorists, he’s come up with a quarter-baked idea.

Anyone denying that the source here is not linking Trump's views to Sippenhaft should not be editing Wikipedia for obvious reasons. Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:DR is that way. This article is about usages of sippenhaft, not proposed usages. It's also not bizarre to want this page to adhere to BLP, AMONG OTHER policies. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't repeat this fucking dopey assertion, unlerss you can ground it in policy.
And again, this article is about usages not proposed usages, as is evident from the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
One version of the article is one way. A second version of the article is another way. That's just a statement of the conflict, not an argument that proves one version is correct and the other one is incorrect. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Correct, which is why if you want to include proposed cases, it needs to be in accordance with policies and not possibly a violation of BLP and V, and possibly SYNTH, which is what you get if you include Trump's statement. It also raises the question of should this article include proposed cases, and to that I say no. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • To return to the original suggestion here, that the article be split (ie taking the stuff about family punishment generally out of an article so that it's only about the German practice) I would support that (as I've mentioned above) but I don't think the Collective Punishment article is the place to put it.
Punishing families for the faults of an individual seems to fall between punishment of individuals (whether just or unjust, proportional or extreme) and clan warfare, by way of guilt by association, attainder, vendetta, mafia hits, and blood-feuds. Collective punishment, on the other hand, seems to focus on general massacres and other war crimes. Also, the motivations for family punishment (“corruption of blood”, hurting those the individual holds dear, eliminating the possibility of revenge) seem different to collective punishment (which is more like terrorizing a population, hitting back at an easy target).
Is there enough to make this a stand-alone article? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The collective punishment has many different forms. It was done based on ethnicity, belonging to a certain social group; it was applied to all members of the same working team ("brigade") in Gulag, etc. Sippenhaft is one of many varieties of collective punishment. Anything about this specific type of collective punishment belongs to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Bradv's solution is simple and in keeping with good editing practices. This article is about the historical German practice and adding modern "examples" is improper WP:SYN. Since Sippenhaft is one example of collective punishment, it is improper to turn around and say the other forms of CP are different examples of Sippenhaft. – S. Rich (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Where do you get the idea that "Sippenhaft" has only a historical meaning? Fact is that it [the word] was and is used outside the Nazi Germany era as the proper legal and common word for this specific form of collective punishment.--TMCk (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverts without policy[edit]

There is no known policy ground evident in any of the following edit summaries.

All of these examples of reverts are without a policy basis.

  • The first is a revert of my restoration of a longstanding text removed by an anonymous IP who gave an edit summary 'removal of ambiguous text' which made no sense, since the text was not 'ambiguous' SJ changes the edit summary but it too is meaningless in terms of policy.
  • The second One third opinion by someone who doesn't appear to understand that WP:BLP has nothing to do with the topic (is Trump's reputation injured by citing a viewpoint he sated publicly, does not hold weight against the balance of opinion on the talk page.
  • The third is sheer nonsense. Juan Cole is an orientalist of distinction. No where does wiki policy state sources must be neutral. Who gets to determine what is enough information on a topic?

Independently minded editors can note that Sir Joseph is riding shotgun on any expansion of the section on Israel, while quietly accepting the following regarding Israel's cultural adversary:

Traditional Arab society, which is clan-based, strongly adheres to the concept of collective responsibility. Bedouins recognize two main forms of penalty for a crime against a member. These are blood revenge, referred to as Qisas (قصا, "revenge") and blood money, Diyya (دية, "blood money"/"ransom"). In cases of severe crimes such as murder and rape, blood revenge is the proscribed punishment. If a murder occurs, clansmen of the victim have the right to kill the murderer or one of his male clansmen with impunity. Certain crimes are liable for multiple acts of revenge, for example, the murder of women and children is avenged fourfold. Crimes considered treacherous, such as the murder of a guest, are also avenged fourfold. Alternatively, a crime punishable by blood revenge can be commuted to a severe fine if the family of the offended party agrees to it. Blood money is paid jointly by the clan of the offending member to the clan of the victimized member. Bedouins differentiate between crimes in which the group must pay as a standing obligation without reimbursement from the perpetrator of the offense, and crimes where the latter must reimburse them. Crimes where the clan is obligated to pay a joint fee without any reimbursement are murder, violent assault, or insults and other offenses committed during a violent conflict. The collective payment of fines for such crimes is viewed as a justified contribution to the welfare of the injured party, rather than a penalty to the perpetrator. Other offenses given a blood-price are crimes against property and crimes against honor.[10] Concepts based on the Arabian laws of blood revenge and blood money are found in Islamic Sharia law, and are thus variously adhered to in Islamic states.

I.e. you can in his view shovel tons of stuff re Islamic societies, but must pull the bridle on any additions to the sparse treatment of Israel's use of these policies in the territories.

  • There are a vast number of sources that state Israel has adopted measures to collectively punish families of people whom its security forces designate as terrorists, i.e. Our article said this began with the 2nd intifada, which contradicts those sources. It was current in the Ist intifada. I corrected that.
  • Since when are editorials (this one from an authoritative Israeli centre-left newspaper) to be excluded as sources. It is an opinion representing a viewpoint current in informed opinion.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Firstly, my name is Sir Joseph, not Sir Joe. Now, if you can't see that (only) including Trump is not a BLP issue, then you need to read up on BLP. You also keep confusing policy with content. This is an article that has lists of actual usages of sippenhaft. It is not for proposed usages. You disagree, and I sought a third opinion. That is following Wikipedia procedure. I removed some of the stuff from the ISrael section, because as I pointed out, it's overkill. I know you like to pile on Israel and make negative comments as often as possible, but the section on Israel was already well documented, it didn't need more. And yes, an editorial is not a RS for entry into Wikipedia. Finally, your section header goes against talk page guidelines, please modify, especially since it's not abuse to disagree with Nishidani. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nishidani: I would like to add to this and say that none of the edit summaries you provided show any form of abuse, personal attacks, or incivil behaviour. They are all inviting you and the other editors to seek consensus on the talk page, which is a very appropriate editing style. On the other hand, the title of this section and the comments you make about Sir Joseph and myself are not conducive to a collaborative environment. Please change your tone. Bradv 18:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
To be consistently obtuse in a discussion is a form of abuse called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Aren't you doing the same thing? I and Bradv have been pointing out this whole page on why you can't include the Trump statement, but because you are Nishidani, you just don't seem to listen. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
And again, WP:DR is available for you. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sir Joseph, may I strongly recommend that you self-revert your last two edits to the article (your edits that removed content). Your edit summaries on the article, as well as your arguments on this talk page, do not appear to be firmly rooted in WP policy -- instead, they appear to be rooted in strong emotions. Your words seem to be making an emotional, and not policy-based, appeal. Thanks. Ijon Tichy (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you please point out which of my edit summaries is in violation of Wikipedia policy? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Please note WP is under no obligation to remove policy-compliant content just because a user does not like it. -- Ijon Tichy (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, because you seem to be all over the place, you accused my edit summaries of being against policy, so can you please point out which of my edit summaries is in violation of Wikipedia policy? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Bradv doesn't clearly understand policy, since (a)citing BLP was egregiously, laughably irrelevant, and now(b) he refuses to acknowledge that an article linking Trump's views to sippenhaft in fact doesa link Trump's views to sippenhalf. Even including him, you have 2 yourself, and him, opposing 3 editors who endorse inclusion. So the stuff goes back. Consensus does not mean unanimity.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No, firstly that's not a consensus. In addition, as pointed out to you prior, it's not just a policy issue, it's a dispute about content. This is an article on actual usages, not proposed usages. So again, if you truly feel that having a sentence on Trump in this article is something you need, then please follow the steps outlined at WP:DR. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope. There's no disputing 3 editors have argued for inclusion. You and Bradv are unhappy? Well, go and complain somewhere. It's not my burden to waste more time on a fatuous thread of assertions without policy grounds. There is no policy that says a majority must refrain from editing until it gets on board a minority that disagrees. Your disagreement is predictable. The other chap has no understanding of policy, as far as I can see. No adequate attempt to reply to the comments made above has been made. It's the usually I&P don't listen just stall, and try and entangle everything up in bureaucratic procedures (which don't apply here)Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope, you are just posting your usual not assuming good faith and trying to argue with everyone who disagrees with you. You want to include something that was removed, the burden is on you. As I pointed out numerous times, you can go to WP:DR, open an RFC, but 3-2 is not a consensus in Wikipedia. If you want, open a new section and we will try to word a neutral RFC and I'll open it since you don't seem to know how to navigate Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have also left a comment at WT:TRUMP for more input. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nishidani: I've replied to you many times, and told you the same thing. You need multiple, independent, reliable sources to claim that what Trump said is an instance of Sippenhaft. You have provided only one article that even uses the word Sippenhaft, and it uses it in reference to Nazi Germany, not Trump. There are a whole host of reasons why your addition to the article is inappropriate, yet you aren't addressing them. You are spending your time making wild comments about Wikipedia policy and insulting the other editors. I'm beginning to wonder why you're here. Bradv 16:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Crap. Cite me the policy. Sippenhaft is defined as punishing the families of people deemed to be culprits;
  • It is a fact that Trump stated:'The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families.' etc.It's opn video and multiply reported.
  • It is a fact that John Fund, a highly credentialled journalist writing for theNational Interest,'America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion,' noted that Trump's idea corresponded to the forms of sippenhaft we have in the Soviet Union, North Korea and Nazi Germany.
  • Note please that our page has these last three cases outlined as sippenhaft, often without adequate sourcing, and neither you nor Sir Joseph object to the WP:OR. When, however you get a source which fits all wiki criteria for adequacy, you protest. I don't need to provide multiple documentation unless it is an extraordinary claim. There is nothing extraordinary in the claim made by Fund. The most I will concede is that you two may ask that attribution be used. It's fatuous to do so, since even blind Freddy and his dog can see that Fund's remark is stating the obvious.

In the United States, Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump (later President-Elect) proposed killing the family members of terrorists. John Fund has interpreted this as an example of sippenhaft. (John Fund, Trump’s Call to Kill Family Members of Terrorists Is Quarter-Baked National Review December 18, 2015)

That's it. No more stonewalling please.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
That link is a 404, but I'm curious to read that article. Do you have a link that works? Bradv 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani, you also keep confusing the issues. Even if what Trump said is Sippenhaft, it should not be included in this article. This article is about ACTUAL usages of sippenhaft. As I keep pointing out to you, in a dispute there are procedures in place. I told you I will work with you on creating a neutrally worded RFC or something similar, but all you want to do is be pompous and arrogant that people dare to disagree with you. That is not how it works here. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for fixing the link. I feel like we're going in circles here, as that is the same article you cited before. It doesn't say that at all. Besides, as you've also been told several times, this page is about actual cases of Sippenhaft, not proposals that sound something like Sippenhaft. Even if you were to properly source that claim, it still wouldn't belong in this article. Bradv 17:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
And if you want to remove items from this article that don't mention sippenhaft, then go for it, be WP:BOLD. Why are you leaving that up to us? Sir Joseph (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I think SJ and Bradv basically appear to be stonewalling. I think Nishidani, Monochrome_Monitor and myself have already refuted SJ's and Bradv's arguments, but they seem to persist with their weak, unmerited and unconvincing views.

I think the sources Nishidani has provided are more than adequate. No additional sources are necessary.

Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, I did a quick search on the German-language google, and came up with several links that discuss Trump+Sippenhaft. Here are two examples (among others): link and link. ---- Ijon Tichy (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which of my edit summaries violate policy. And again, since you seem to keep missing it, WP:DR. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Neither you nor Bradv seem to read the comments you reply to. Your false edit summaries were detailed above. Read the page. Brad, as for going round in circles, I gave you a complete breakdown of how the Trump-Sippenhaft article was constructed. You ignored it. If you haven't got an argument, or a policy, don't comment. An opinion is just that, chat. I challenge anyone here to find a board opinion which would support the view that Trump's policy in that article is likened to sippenhaft.It is impossible to read the article any other way. We have a 3 to 2 verdict for inclusion. So, I'm going to restore it within a day, if no one beats me to the gunNishidani (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I have read everything you have written, in detail, and am still not convinced. What you have just added to the article is unsourced (the source you gave doesn't say what you think it does), and off-topic for this article. I have reverted it. If you would like to open an RfC to get more comments on this, please go ahead. Bradv 14:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't need your permission. I do not need to convince you. You are entitled to your view, but there is no BLP policy violation here. If you are convinced there is, argue that on the relevant board and notify us.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
You are edit warring. Time and time, you were told to seek DR or open an RFC. 3-2 is not a consensus especially when BLP is in play. In addition, your post violates ARBCOM ruling. And more, your post is again off topic for an article on actual sippenhaft. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This is puerile. You and the other chap disagree with three editgors who argued for inclusion. Having exercised great patience, and analysed each false policy claim, I went ahead and reentered the material. You are edit warring. It is pointless to keep trying to unnerve me by reverting me over numerous pages. You're obsessed with this, I couldn't give a fuck either way. Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, if you strongly feel that is should be included, go to WP:DR or open an RFC. I even said I will help with wording a neutral RFC. That is proper way to seek dispute resolution, not by violating DS or possible BLP issues. Your edits, especially at my talk page merely points to POINTY and that you are not here to edit collaboratively. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with Nishidani. We tell what reliable sources tell, especially about public figures. My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, there are two issues here. 1) Should this article have proposed cases and not just actual cases, and 2) Is the Trump inclusion a BLP issue. Regardless if you feel the Rs says it's good to go, there is still the question on putting in actual cases. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think anyone would need specific examples? Simply a notable discussion of this (as a possible future policy) would deserve inclusion. This seems to be notable enough because the question appeared on presidential debates and elsewhere - as published in multiple RS, for example [4] or [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? This article is ACTUAL cases, not proposed. People propose things all the time but it's not necessarily for this article. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahem. Firstly, I wrote the section on other uses, including the one about Arabian law. I did not intend to attack Islamic society in any way, I was referring above all to the Bedouin whom I respect. I also removed your reference to the first intifada since the source refers to collective punishment in general in the form of curfew, which has nothing to do with kin. However I added that home demolitions have been practiced since 67. Now onto the important stuff. There are two arguments against including DJT that in my opinion can be disregarddc. That is the BLP one and the poor sourcing one. As for BLP it's certainly not meant to be used this way. It is a quotation straight from his mouth, and our deeming it BLP is deeming some things he says more self-injurious than others. Then there's the sources thing. Sippenhaft is a German term which is not likely to be used by english media. Thus our sources referring to sippenhaftish policies in Russia and Israel are both from German press. Sippenhaft is a concept, not a buzzword. When one says "I want to take out the families of terrorists", that's kin punishment, aka Sippenhaft. The other argument, whether or not we include threats of Sippenhaft, is what we should focus on. In my view this case is different because it is a current threat, not a historic one. And Trump is not just a person, he is the future Leader of the Free World.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

And lets stop intimating (and blatantly stating) that fellow editors are not fit to be editing wikipedia. This should be a discussion about what will make this page better, not who is the better wikipedian. I do find it somewhat concerning that Nishidani appeals to an essay while once dismissing WP:BRD since it's not wikipedia policy. While I agree with him in this instance I also think he's being unnecessarily combative, especially regarding Sir Joseph's alleged tribal biases. The same argument can be made that we only want to include Trump because we dislike him and not because his comment is relevant to the subject of this page.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The thing is that candidates make all sorts of promises, especially Trump. But there is no threat to this happening as all the government leaders has said that there is no chance at all for this to happen. So therefore it makes no sense to include it other than making Trump look bad. If you want, include this on a list of Trump promises, but for an encyclopedia article that is supposed to last the test of time, it makes no sense to include this promise within a list of actual cases. (I could be wrong but I could have sworn I remembered a discussion where there was a statement of Abbas that some wanted to include in the Abbas article, but others were fighting it because it made him look bad.)Sir Joseph (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The test of time does not mean we can never add information subject to temporal change. He's not even president yet. Again, he said it, so he obviously didn't think it made him look bad. Did you see my comment about the first hundred days?--Monochrome_Monitor 03:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
If it happens, then put it in. As it stands now, it will never happen. So it doesn't need to be in the list with actual cases. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It is notable enough for now that he threatened it as future US president. I would agree with you if he were just the nominee, but he's president-elect. This is extremely notable.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
So mention it on the Trump page or Trump campaign promises page. It's not an actual case of sippenhaft. To list this in an article only containing actual cases is wrong. I can't keep going on saying this. Again, not every campaign promise that has no chance of coming true needs to be put in an article. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
As Sir Joseph correctly points out above, this is "not an actual case of sippenhaft." It is just an off the cuff remark. It doesn't warrant inclusion in this article because it is mere rhetoric. John Fund raises the specter of "Sippenhaft" but he is not making a strong case that this is an example of "Sippenhaft". John Fund refers to Trump's comments as a "spontaneous proposal"[6]. I see this as being in contrast to a serious proposal. This is a brief remark and this is certainly not an actual event or instance of "Sippenhaft". Bus stop (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

What is this article about?[edit]

This seems to be a point of contention, so my hope is that laying it out like this will help people see eye to eye, or maybe even write a better article. Here is the current structure of the article as I see it:

  1. A section describing an early-medieval Germanic principle of guilt by association, for which we are using a German word. This section states pretty clearly that the principle was followed far beyond the borders of modern Germany, but it is woefully unsourced and incomplete (when was it abandoned? for how long has the word "sippenhaft" been used to describe it? do English-speaking historians have a different word?).
  2. A section describing the way the word/concept was used in Nazi Germany, then abandoned afterwards. Nobody has any complaints about this part!
  3. A list of similar concepts found in other traditions. This seems totally fine to me in light of the first section.
  4. A list of modern examples of kin punishment. Here there is a pretty abrupt transition to contemporary uses of the word, without any real explanation (there is one up in the lead, but that doesn't help the body text flow). This is probably the weakest section, but it would be fine with some intro text and sources.
  5. A list of modern examples of kin punishment with sources describing each example as sippenhaft. This section is on much more solid footing than the previous one, I think, but it still suffers from the same flow problems that make it seem like it's just tacked on at the end of an article about something else. IMO despite this awkwardness there is a real progression of archaic use -> Nazi use -> contemporary use that is reflected in the article, so this section isn't actually out of place, it just needs a little work.

-165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I intended when I broke the article down that way. You are right that the part about terrorism has no secondary source naming the phenomena. However its commonly acknowledged that we are in the 4th generation of warfare. It is often difficult to distinguish unlawful combatants from civilians and thus collective punishment is increasingly practiced. Anyway my biggest issue right now is the weakness of the main theme (germanic law) in light of other examples. The source I linked about how germanic peoples used sippenhaft has more usable info, but unfortunately it is specifically about the norman period, when blood revenge was gradually being replaced by blood money apparently due to religious pressure. I wish there were a source about the original sippenhaft practiced by germanic tribes. There probably is but I bet it's in German.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple sourcing[edit]

Per comments by User: my very best wishes at the BLP noticeboard:

In the United States, Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump (later President-Elect) proposed killing the family members of terrorists. John Fund has interpreted this as an example of sippenhaft. [1][2][3]

An external editor at the WP:BLP board said the only objection was use of one source. Here are 2 further sources. Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

References


In the United States, Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump (later the President) proposed killing the family members of terrorists. John Fund, Silke Mülherr (senior policy editor and writer for die Zeit) and the Archdiocese of Cologne have interpreted this as an example of Sippenhaft. --- Ijon Tichy (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This is of course not an example of Sippenhaft. It did not transpire. If it were to transpire, it would be an example of Sippenhaft. But seeing as how it did not transpire, it is not an example of Sippenhaft. Bus stop (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This a very clear and notable example of Sippenhaft being proposed by the now President of the United States. There is absolute no logic behind your reasoning, absolute none.--TMCk (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The section isn't called "sippenhaft that has transpired". It's called other examples. What he proposed is an example of sippenhaft in the sense of kin punishment.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no other instance in this article of a person being associated with Sippenhaft on the basis of something said. The effort to speak of Trump in Wikipedia's voice associating him with Sippenhaft in an article that has an obvious scope documenting real instances of Sippenhaft gratuitously expands the scope of the article to include Trump based on entirely inadequate documentation. The mere presence of a source taking Trump to task for the stupidity of a comment that he made in a casual context does not belong in an article on actual instances of the practice of Sippenhaft. Fund's own references include "half-baked" and "spontaneous proposal". Not only is this supposed instance of Sippenhaft only verbal but the source itself includes doubts about the seriousness of Trump's verbal expression. Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It was objected (a) that this is a WP:BLP violation. There is no agreement that it is; (b) that there was only one source for Trump's statement as equivalent to sippenhaft. Two further RS were duly supplied to respond to that comment; (c) it was also asserted that the sources can't be said to relate sippenhaft to Trump. This is clearly contrafactual.
The evidence suggests that the objections at this point are WP:WIKILAWYERING, or trying to game things by mere stacking in opposition votes. To claim that because John Fund, having identified Trump's remark as an example of sippenhaft, dismisses it as 'half baked' and a 'spontaneous proposal', it is therefore unusable, is off the planet. All stupid or outrageous quarterbaked comments by notable figures are regularly noted on wiki bio articles - the I/P area is flush with them. To make an exception of Trump's obiter dicta is to violate standard wiki neutrality by special pleading. There is no policy cogency in any of the objections any more. Worst of all, two editors are denying the relevant RS by interpreting them as not meaning what they clearly state. This is going beyond our editorial remit: if sources state a view we dislike (WP:IDONTLIKEIT), are recognized as RS, and material to the topic, then editors are obliged to accept them. Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not, in essence, be elevating off-the-cuff remarks into instances of examples of sippenhaft. Your argument that "[a]ll stupid or outrageous quarterbaked comments by notable figures are regularly noted on wiki bio articles - the I/P area is flush with them"[7] is simply an argument that other stuff exists. No other examples can be found in this article of the noting of mere verbalizations. This is for the obvious reason that mere verbalizations are not sippenhaft, and the source, by John Fund, makes this abundantly clear. All other examples found in this article are concrete examples. Why should we make an exception concerning president Trump? Bear in mind that this is not a "bio article". I don't think the primary purpose of this article entails the delving into of every obscure instance of a verbalization relating to sippenhaft. The impetus to include Trump's remark is a contrivance that exemplifies WP:CHERRYPICKING. The primary purposes of this article include defining and identifying actual examples of sippenhaft, not finding fault with current politicians based on off-the-cuff remarks. These remarks by Trump are not even mentioned in the bio of Trump. I think that is revealing of their "importance". Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
There is, again, no policy argument here justifying this waffle. Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It is unclear, to me anyway, what you mean by "waffle". Am I waffling on an issue? If Wikipedia should represent Trump as promoting sippenhaft, shouldn't this be noted in the article on Donald Trump? Sources do not, by-and-large, support that Donald Trump promotes the idea that the relatives of terrorists should be punished. An off-the-cuff remark is not tantamount to a policy position. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I mean by waffle just tossing off opinions that have no value in terms of wiki policy based editing. A clear majority has consistently seen no relation between the desultory opinions opposed to its inclusion and policy. When conditions are set (more sources) and met, the objectors keep blathering. To me, I am heartened to see that, despite very fundamental disagreements in the past with editors like myself, Monochrome Monitor has made a call that is beyond any suspicion of being disturbed by ideological investments. She looked at the issue closely, and then made a call, which happens to agree beyond the usual partisan lines, without doing me or anyone else a favour. That is a mark of editorial independent mindedness. You and Sir Joe never agree with any position I may argue for. The opposition is mechanical, as is shown by the fact that everything you state has no sound policy basis, and defies commonsensical reading of sources and policy. Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It is still unclear to me from whence the "waffling" arises but I guess I'm not going to get an answer to that question. I think I am being consistent and not waffling on anything. If Wikipedia should represent Trump as promoting sippenhaft, shouldn't this be noted in the article on Donald Trump? Sources do not, by-and-large, support that Donald Trump promotes the idea that the relatives of terrorists should be punished. Was this just an inadvertent omission from the Donald Trump article? An off-the-cuff remark is not tantamount to a policy position in favor of sippenhaft. Yet that implication would be the result of the inclusion in this article of the snippet of verbalization that you are arguing for. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for illustrating my point re waffling. Just above you took me to task for, in your view, indulging in arguments that are just other stuff. Now you state:

If Wikipedia should represent Trump as promoting Sippenhaft, shouldn't this be noted in the article on Donald Trump? Sources do not, by-and-large, support that Donald Trump promotes the idea that the relatives of terrorists should be punished. Was this just an inadvertent omission from the Donald Trump article?

That is a classic other stuff exists argument. I.e. you can't have Trump on sippenhaft on the sippenhaft article because it is not mentioned on another wiki article re Trump. I.e. you cite or ignore the same policy according to convenience. Let's shut up, and listen for further input. Burying an issue by excessive discussion that is repetitive is a wikilawyering tactic to put potential third parties off (see WP:TLDR). Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It is not mentioned in that article because an embrace of Sippenhaft does not reflect Donald Trump's stated policy positions. Would it not be misleading to readers to suggest that Sippenhaft was a part of the Donald Trump agenda? Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Partisan lines? What about me makes you assume I would not want trump's comment here? As it says in the essay other stuff exists refers to saying something, usually a page up for deletion "discussion", should be kept, not based on notability/established consensus, but based on the fact that other stuff exists (or in this case doesn't exist). Busstop's main point is that off-the-cuff comments are not notable on this page, and he backs that up by saying this page doesn't have other examples of it. While other stuff exists actually has merit within a single article since the people writing/discussing the page deemed a similar thing notable under the specific circumstances, other stuff does not exist is a crappy argument. This is just absence of evidence, not evidence of absence (not a perfect analogy but you get me). The worst flavor of OSE IMO is that since something doesn't already exist, it doesn't matter and shouldn't be included. I had a funny discussion with a certain editor about including notable "Black Hebrew" groups on the page about them, and said editor said that since those groups didn't have individual wp articles about them, they aren't that notable. Lol. But I digress... things don't exist until we make them exist. There is a first time for everything, and wikipedia will never be complete. So once again I implore you guys to specifically address whether it should be included in this article because it is notable or left out because it isn't, because OSE arguments like "this isn't on trumps page so it's not a notable thing he said" are fallacious. In fact one can play the same game and say that other biographies exist where certain quotations are absent (because in the broad scheme of the entire person, they are not notable) but in the pages specifically about the thing they were talking about they are included, because within the specific subject they are notable. In this case I would argue its worth having his comment--- not because it was significant within his campaign promises or because it is going to be in his actual policies. It is notable because of the circumstances it was said in- by someone who is now the most powerful man in the world, and because of the significance of sippenhaft itself. It's not just any other half-baked proposal. It's in the tradition, whether trump knew it or not, of a historic phenomenon that is remembered primarily for its authoritarian permutation and abhorred in the West. Responders please argue along lines of whether it is notable.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's partisan lines according to Nishidani because Bus Stop agrees with me. It's not partisan when TMC and |Johntichy agrees with Nishidani. As for your claim, it is not notable because it is indeed an off the cuff remark by a candidate about a proposal that zero chance of being implemented. That is not notable at all. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
No. All those who supported my contention have disagreed with me occasionally or often, and registered a counter view. I don't know who introduced the 'off-the-cuff' phrase but like everything else said in favour of excision it's wrong: Trump repeated his December 2015 remark three months later in the face of widespread and ongoing criticism,
Taking part in the Fox News GOP debate last night, the billionaire was asked about General Michael Hayden saying that the military would refuse to follow illegal orders such as the intentional killing of terrorists’ families. Trump said: “They won’t refuse, they’re not going to refuse me — believe me.” (Hardeep Matharu, 'Donald Trump reiterates desire to murder terrorists’ families' The Independent March 4 2016) Note the tense used.
When you have an opinion stated not once, but twice, in the face of protests and criticisms over a three month period, then it is is neither trivial nor off-the-cuff. It is an expression of a conviction, whether implemented or not. Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
As to stated policy positions, the Donald Trump page is not observing the distinction here between official policy and declared statements of his positions. Indeed it directly states what we refuse4 to add here:

Also in 2016, when asked how he would handle ISIS using human shields, Trump responded with "you have to take out their families."[468]

Again, double standards.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I introduced the "off-the-cuff" phrase. You say "When you have an opinion stated not once, but twice, in the face of protests and criticisms over a three month period, then it is is neither trivial nor off-the-cuff. It is an expression of a conviction, whether implemented or not." That may be your reasoning but it is not my reasoning. I see someone running for president of the United States trying to garner support. I don't see someone laying out a policy position. Sippenhaft in this instance was not implemented. This matters because all other examples provided in this article are instances of Sippenhaft that were implemented. They are concrete instances of Sippenhaft. This article has not documented mere verbal references in the absence of implementation. Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
In plain English, you cannot call a remark 'off-the-cuff' when it is repeated, and, on the second occasion, repeated in the face of extensive objections to your first use of it months earlier. It is immaterial what Trump's motives are, since we include numerous controversial remarks on figures without speculating as to the putative calculations behind their statements. You get the most intense efforts by editors to attribute to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the statement "Israel must be wiped off the map," which he never said. SJ had fought to keep that non-policy statement there, and won. Here he fights to keep out a non-policy statement. It's political editing, rather than editing in accordance with the documentary public record, regardless of what political interest said what. It is lack of coherence in editorial principles across pages which is disturbing.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a distinction between that which has transpired and that which has not transpired. This article has not, up until this point, included material about remarks that would constitute Sippenhaft if they took place. In this instance they are remarks that refer to nothing because the concrete counterpart in the realm of reality has not taken form. These are remarks that merely exist in the realm of the verbal. You are arguing to expand the scope of this article to include mere verbal references to Sippenhaft. I oppose that. I don't think this is an article designed to reference a variegated array of instances in which individuals speaking on their own behalf said "take out their families" or some such wording that would indeed refer to Sippenhaft. Mere reference to that which constitutes Sippenhaft is not sufficient to warrant inclusion in this article. There is a difference between something said and something done. The article should have a focus and it does have a focus at present. The article defines Sippenhaft and it gives instances of Sippenhaft. The article provides historical instances of Sippenhaft and instances closer to the present. But the article as it presently exists does not include references that remain in the verbal realm. The onus is on you to persuade us that mere comments by presidential candidate Trump warrant inclusion in this article. Bus stop (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing there is policy-based. It's a personal opinion, and the fact that the main editor promoting its exclusion on the basis that it was not implemented fought on another page to insinuate a misquotation of a non-policy should be included was not addressed. Cogency of policy interpretation is reflected in coherence in the observance across multiple pages of the same principle.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It's called WP:UNDUE and several editors have stated as such. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Review your revert and comment history. You opposed it, and reverted it out, without mentioning WP:Undue, which came up more insistently when all else failed. The WP:BLP argument likewise was chucked out as junk. Meaning, much opposition was based on claims generally thought erratic. It remains to be seen if the WP:Undue argument stands up.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we've isolated the problem to one of notability/due weight. We should have a vote, NOT on Wikiproject Trump. Maybe on WP:WikiProject_Politics/American_politics. I'm afraid of sampling bias.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sippenhaft and Obama?[edit]

Did a quick search on the English Google and on the German Google for 'Sippenhaft+Obama.' The search returned several book passages that appear to mention both 'Sippenhaft' and 'Obama' seemingly in the same paragraph. I tried a machine translation service (Google Translate) but it appears it may not be capable of translating book pages, although GT is capable of translating direct text (not an image of text) from German. Are there any WP users who may read German and who may have the time, motivation and inclination to look into this? (IIRC, Monochrome_Monitor or Nishidani may read German? Not sure if they do ...) Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

May be interesting to repeat for Sippenhaft+Bush, too. Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This is wikiselection bias.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent clean-up[edit]

As Sippenhaft is a Germanic (non-English) term and topic, I've edited the article to remove the non-Germanic aspects of the article. (This is in accordance with WP:ENGLISH.) Those (aspects/paragraphs) that remain are tagged for better sources and translations (with the hope that better sourcing can be used to tie this title/topic to those sources). Editors who wish to tie-together collective-punishment/retribution/revenge type of activities to different countries (such as nKorea, Israel, Russia, China, Japan, etc.) should do so in articles which are distinct from this particular and historical term. IOW, just because an activity is similar to Sippenhaft is not justification to expand the article beyond Sippenhaft per se in its scope.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. That was a very significant change, and I think a POV one. Sippenhaft was not an "idea", but practice, and a lot of other changes are also disputable. But here is my main objection. This page is not about specific term that originally came from German, but about specific subject which is known as collective punishment of members of the family. Therefore, all materials about other countries must remain on the page, and a lot of arguments to support such position were made by other contributors in discussions above on this page. Please make small changes and get consensus from others for them on this talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Srich32977's changes. This article is about the German term Sippenhaft, not about the broader concept of collective punishment or kin liability. The sections that were removed would better suit an article about the broader topic. Bradv 17:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, the kin liability is now redirected to this page. One might suggest two possible solutions: (a) treat this page essentially as a "kin liability" page (i.e. according to the current redirect) and possibly rename/move this page to "kin liability", or (b) shorten this page and move content related to other countries to kin liability page. However, there is a problem here: the "liability" and "punishment" are not the same. For example, this is not about punishment. Therefore, I would actually suggest to keep this page about kin punishment as it is, with all countries. Either way, the edits under discussion are not "clean-up". My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Based on what you're saying, I think Kin punishment is probably the best name for a new article. This article can focus on the German practice and the German context, and the broader topic can be covered under kin punishment. That new article could contain all of the stuff here that we've been struggling with, including Israel/Palestine, Trump's proposal to punish the families of terrorists, and traditional Arab/Bedouin blood revenge customs. It would also prevent accusations of original research, as many of the sources used here do not mention the term Sippenhaft, although they do speak of kin punishment in more generic terms. Bradv 18:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I did not even think about Vendetta/Blood feud that appears also in Adat... I have no objections to your suggestion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I've started the fork, reverting this article largely to Srich32977's version, and moving the removed content to Kin punishment. You are welcome to continue to improve both articles. Bradv 20:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. No objections from me. The only potential objection could be that term "kin punishment" is not widely used in English secondary RS and applied as synonym of "Sippenhaft" - see here, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I would have no objections to moving the article if someone suggests a better name. The way I see it, this is a subset of collective punishment, and a superset of sippenhaft. It's not really a synonym for either term, and therefore should have its own article. Bradv 20:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The "kin punishment" Google search was not helpful. Despite the quotes, I see it came up with 'kin, punishment', 'kin. Punishment' and 'kin – punishment' in the first 10 of 25 results. In any event, the redirect of Kin liability now redirects to Kin punishment. – S. Rich (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I am talking about. Based on searches, Kin punishment and this page should be merged. Also note that liability and punishment are very different things as reflected in sources [8]. One could develop page about "kin liability" (this is is a separate subject), but this page should be about "kin punishment". My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
You've gone back and forth on this several times now. The articles have been separated into sippenhaft and kin punishment. The two terms are not synonyms—sippenhaft isn't even an English word. Let's leave the two articles separate for at least a few months and see how they continue to develop. Bradv 15:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
There is active discussion about related subject on BLPNB, and people are arguing that such materials should be included on this page. I am surprised they did not take part in this discussion. Actually, my suggestion would be different: to start a discussion about merging these two pages and what should be the name of the page in case of merging. But let's wait if other people have to say anything about it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you are incorrect. It appears that the only reliable secondary source (a book) on the subject of "kin punishment" (rather than "kin liability" which is a different subject) I found explicitly tells that sippenhaft and kin punishment are actually synonyms [9]. Now, if there are any sources that tell otherwise (i.e. that they are not synonyms), please link them here. If no one can provide such sources, the content and the pages should be merged. My very best wishes (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
You are incorrect. The terms are not synonyms. In the link cited, "kin punishment" is provided as a translation of the German word. "Kin punishment" comports with WP:RECOGNIZABLE as an English term. So does Sippenhaft – as a German term. (BTW, the BLPNB discussion is moot because we have taken the Trump stuff out of this article.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it came from German, but this it is now widely used in English, as one can easily check [10]. Hence that was not translation, but simply a clarification of meaning. Well, if you can provide some reliably sourced examples of usage of expression "kin punishment" which would have a different meaning from "Sippenhaft", you would have a valid argument. So far I did not see any such examples.My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Looking at the first 10 results from the Google search as a random sample, we see that 6 are German language. The other 4 are about Sippenhaft in Germany. Hence the search result the topic of this article is best narrowed to that usage. Use those results to expand the article. But please don't use them to say that all instances of "kin punishment" are Sippenhaft. This article could be a WP:GA, but not if it goes beyond the WP:Scope of Sippenhaft alone. – S. Rich (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Also, please note that Sippenhaft does not appear in the Merriam-Webster Thesaurus or Dictionary.17:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Not appears in a dictionary? Well, this is actually an argument that the page is not about the word, but about the subject. The validity of the subject is easy to establish by Google books searches. [11]. Note that according to the sources, "kin punishment"=Sippenhaft, and it has a very wide meaning; this is not about Germany. See here or here. It tells, for example:
Hitler had copied Sippenhaft invented by Russian Bolsheviks

My very best wishes (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Above you argued that Sippenhaft and kin punishment were synonyms. (Again, no, one is a translation of the other.) Also, you argued that Sippenhaft is "now widely used in English". (No, the word is not in the English dictionary, but the German term is discussed in different books.) The real issue for us as editors is how do we develop an article that is useful to the reader. Simply because we can find a "topic" in a Google search does not mean the topic is based on a word that is widely used. For example, Google "flaxination" (a word that I invented for this thread). You will get ≈7,000 results. Is "flaxination" a topic worthy of an article simply because we get Google hits? No. But Sippenhaft is worthy because we can find RS which discusses it in the context of Germanic law and history. Also note that Michalczyk put Sippenhaft in italics, which is what WP does per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. – S. Rich (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
So, we both (and others) agree that the subject/topic is worthy. OK. How exactly it should be named? This is per WP:COMMON NAME. Therefore, it should be "Sippenhaft" - exactly as it is right now. Do "non-German" materials about this subject/topic ("kin punishment", which would be a more convenient English name) belong to this page? Yes, they do, as clear from the sources, e.g. quotation above. Please place them back to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
You are presenting conflicting points. E.g., Sippenhaft is a notable WP subject/topic and it has the proper article title. At the same time, I think you want to add in English language sources to this article simply because they mention "kin punishment". But Sippenhaft is merely an historical German version of "kin punishment. With this in mind, it is improper to add sources to this article when such sources mention "kin punishment" and do not discuss Sippenhaft per se. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I simply suggest to follow sources. As clear from the Google searches and quotation above (for example), English language sources mostly use term Sippenhaft, meaning "kin punishment" (yes, the word came to English from German, just as many other words), and they use it not only for kin punishment in Germany, but also for the same in other countries. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Quote My very best wishes - "Yes, it came from German, but this it is now widely used in English" - no one, the absolute vast total majority in England knows what Sippenhahft means at all Govindaharihari (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
How come? I am not at all an expert in English, but simple Google search [12] and checking the sources shows that the term is sufficiently widely used in English language literature. I am not entirely opposed to renaming this page to "kin punishment", however looking at the sources it seems that Sippenhaft is more consistent with WP:COMMON NAME. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
to quote myverybestwishes again - "I am not at all an expert in English" - agreed and understood - None of those links support common usage or even any general understanding, take it from me - absolutely no one in England understands what Sippenhaft means - also - kin punishment is unknown here, no one has any experience or understanding of it, wikipedia is not a teaching outlet. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you think this is not valid subject (hence this page should be deleted) or you think it should be renamed to "kin punishment"? My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think either of those things. I think it was already ok before you started attempting merger. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: You are beating a WP:Deadhorse. Your idea of AfDing the page is a no go, as is renaming it "kin punishment". Unless you can find some support for these ideas, please drop the stick. – S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

No one suggested to AfD this page. What "dead horse"? You unilaterally removed a lot of sourced content from the page without discussion and called it "clean up". This content belongs to the page (per sources -see above) and must be placed back. My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think MVBW is beating a dead horse, and I don't agree that any of his ideas are a 'no go.' I think the perspectives that he offers are valid (because they are policy-compliant), and in fact I support his views. Ijon Tichy (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Govindaharihari by your reasoning, whatever no people in England understand can't be the object of an encyclopedic article, which means wiki should be pared down to a couple of thousand pages. Any European comparativist or medievalist, or speaker of German, knows what Sippenhaft is. I guess you exclude academics. By that token, we shouldn't have articles on quantum mechanics because 'no one' in England (barring physicists) understands the subject.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani, you misrepresent my position.I have no interest in getting overly involved in this minor concern with you thanks. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how Nishidani misrepresents your position. It appears he has done a very good job of accurately representing your position. Ijon Tichy (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Link to the BLP discussion[edit]

here Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's not conflate the discussion here with the BLP issues. Here we are talking about what is the best way to describe the Germanic concept of Sippenhaft to the reader. In the WP:BLPNB discussion, the concern is whether articles about Donald Trump should be using the term Sippenhaft. As long as we keep Trump out of this article we will not have a BLP issue. (Also, I was hoping that the BLPNB thread would die from lack of attention so that we could remove the BLPO notice from this talkpage. – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope. There is no evidence that because a concept arose among the German peoples, and was called by them 'sippenhaft', ipso facto, the page must exclude any sources which cite this term and draw analogies from it with other historical realities where kin are punished. The consensus was that there is no BLP issue involved, and those who raised this did not grasp elementary policy. Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Merging with Kin punishment[edit]

  • I suggest to merge content of this page to Sippenhaft. After looking at Google books, I can see only one RS about "Kin punishment", and it tells "kin punishment" is the same as "Sippenhaft" [13]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Sippenhaft isn't even an English word. If there is a consensus to merge, it should be in this direction. Furthermore, the split happened based on your suggestion, so now proposing a merge is just a waste of everyone's time. Bradv 20:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure why you split the page until the end of discussion. I only made a redirect from here to page Sippenhaft, which would be fine. Google searches show that Sippenhaft has a much wider usage in English than expression "Kin punishment". Hence I suggest merging this page/content into page Sippenhaft that peacefully existed for a long time. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
To quote myverybestwishes - Sippenhaft has a much wider usage in English than expression "Kin punishment". - this claim is nonsense, totally nonsense, no one in England has any idea what Sippenhaft mean at all - the vast majority also have no understanding of Kin punishment either. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. So, what do you suggest? Merge these pages, do not merge, AfD, or what? My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The idea has been discussed to death on the Sippenhaft talk page (and it finds no support). I've removed the merge templates. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
No, this idea has not been discussed on the page Sippenhaft. I started such discussion only now. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sippenhaft is a clearly separate, well elaborated topic: German-specific form of kin punishment. The generic article Kin punishment covers cases all over the world and has alot of potential to grow. In this case the proper procedure not merging, but WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • According to RS, such as here or here, the "Sippenhaft" is also applied for other countries. One of them tells, for example:
Hitler had copied Sippenhaft invented by Russian Bolsheviks
My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@MVBW: I think you have misread these sources. The first ("Controversial issues in prison") has Kin Punishment as a translation of Sippenhaft and refers specifically to the Nazi German practice. The second ("Confront:Resistance in Nazi Germany") also refers to the Nazi practice, and is, apparently, a translation from German. It certainly doesn't mean that the Russian name for the practice was Sippenhaft (or if it does it is way off beam; the Russian term for it would probably have been something like статья 58-1в (ie. Article 58-1v; viz this, at ruWP). Moonraker12 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
No, the 1st source was about relatives of imprisoned persons in general, not about Nazi Germany. It tells: "In some countries family members...". As about second source, it tells what it tells (quoted). I did not check, but the practice of taking family members hostages was widely used during Red Terror and Russian Civil War, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Both of those source talk about the Nazi use of Sippenhaft. You can have other readings; I often see editors on Wikipedia closely citing single sentences while missing the gist of the source. Sometimes it’s almost like biblical polemics where single verses are twisted around.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • MVBW's AGF comment about "finding only one RS" about Kin punishment is patently false less than helpful. The article lists 11 actual references, 7 of which are non-German. MVBW's quotation (above) is inaccurate. The correct quotation is "Hitler had copied Sippenhaft invented by Russian Bolsheviks". This inaccuracy is important because the RS provided demonstrated that Sippenhaft is in italics because it is a non-English word. – S. Rich (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) There are actually 3 books of some value. A regular Google search for kin punishment produces a lot of RS. – S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing was "patently false". I provided link to Google books search for the combination "kin punishment". It produces 19 results [14], however only book #3 produces clear usage of "kin punishment" as subject. Other "hits" are something like "kin. Punishment". That was already mentioned in discussion in previous thread. I suspect that page kin punishment would not survive an AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Saying that, I agree with Srich that a number of RS on the subject of "kin punishment" can be found. I simply think there are no enough sources for two pages, and the subject is exactly the same. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the above explanation and to quote User:Staszek Lem - "Sippenhaft is a clearly separate, well elaborated topic: German-specific form of kin punishment. The generic article Kin punishment covers cases all over the world" Govindaharihari (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support merging of 'Sippenhaft' and 'Kin liability,' per sources and reasoning provided by user: My very best wishes. Ijon Tichy (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment. The farce created by this definitional fundamentalism is that now several parallel cases of sippenhaft/kin liability have been wiped off the wiki record, and now, I presume we are expected to write stubs of Miè zú(滅族) 'kin liability(China)', rather than have the comparative information for an identical notion on the one page. Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Sippenhaft is too closely associated with Nazi Germany in English sources and is sometimes used as a way to score points by way of comparison. Better to use the generic Kin punishment.Jonney2000 (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Guess what? zú zhū (族誅), literally "family execution" and miè zú (灭族/滅族) already has an article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
It would be nothing wrong to have an "umbrella" article "kin punishment" and a number of country-specific pages, but only if there are RS that describe "kin punishment" as a general multi-country phenomenon. I am simply not sure that current references on "kin punishment" page are sufficient in this regard. To the contrary, there are sources (see quotation above) that describe "Sippenhaft", rather than "kin punishment" as a general multi-country phenomenon. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd Oppose this, for the reasons already given; Sippenhaft is not the universal term for the practice of punishing family members of wrongdoers (any more than Éraic, or Qisas, or Mie Zu would be), nor is it the common name in English (it isn't in the OED even as a borrowed term, and doesn' exist in English except in reference to the Nazi practice). If anything, Sippenhaft is an example of Kin Punishment, not the other way around.
On the specific reason for the merge (the lack of RS for the term) "Kin Punishment" is a non-judgemental descriptive title, so it doesn't need a source for the specific term: All it needs is to be a notable concept, well supported by RS for its content (which it is). if more are needed, a broader search term (ie this or this throws up plenty of useful stuff...Moonraker12 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The consensus seem to be "oppose" so far. That's fine, let's not merge. I do not mind. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)