Jump to content

Talk:Sippenhaft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

Sippenhaft und Sippenhaftung is not necessarily the same. Haftung means being liable and Haft means incarceration. We learnt it in German school that punishing someone just because he/she is related to a villain is totally unethical. Punishment must only be slapped on a person by a judge after a trial in a proper court. I came upon the topic today because a reputable organisation published an article on how to punish the Russian President Vladimir Putin for his political deeds by slapping sanction punishment on his relatives. There the word Sippenhaft came back into my head. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:E573:6DDC:4C77:E058 (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [2]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, it came from German, but this it is now widely used in English, as one can easily check [3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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. [4]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How come? I am not at all an expert in English, but simple Google search [5] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Merging with Kin punishment

[edit]
Agree.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Nothing was "patently false". I provided link to Google books search for the combination "kin punishment". It produces 19 results [7], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Source misrepresentation

[edit]

The user Noonicarus added to the article: "The Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela [es] concluded in a September 2021 report that Venezuelan security and intelligence agents reportedly applied the principle of Sippenhaftung..". This is misrepresentation of the sources. In the report there's on p. 109 an alleged case and no conclusion from the mission, though the mission indirectly criticises the court for seemingly not taking action after the person informed the court: "He told the Control Court that after refusing to make declarations posed to him during the interrogation session, the DGCIM members told him they would apply “Sippenhaft”..". https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/FFMV/A-HRC-48-CRP.5_EN.pdf 2A02:810B:109F:D558:68D5:BDC9:419A:C783 (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is sourced by four different independent sources, and the report likewise includes other attacks against relatives of detainees. At any rate, the addition includes "reportedly" to distinguish its source as the testimony of an interviewee. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the report there's Sippenhaft one time mentioned (and not in the conclusions) and explicitly as a quote from one person of Operación Gedeón. Bloomberg does not represent this different either "Un acusado de participar en la Operación Gedeón dijo al Tribunal de Control en su audiencia preliminar que agentes de la DGCIM lo torturaron y le dijeron que aplicarían el 'Sippenhaft'." You made out of it something completely else, writing about conclusions and reports of the mission about the principle of Sippenhaftung being applied. The report is criticising the justice system in Venezuela for not protecting human rights against the police (relevant for other articles and that's a conclusion by them) and it points out in this case there was no indication the judge has taken action after the allegation against the police. It does not conclude (nor is it concluding there're reports) there's Sippenhaft used as a principle. --2A02:810B:109F:D558:405A:C461:CF84:6DBA (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The independent sources say:
  • The 2021 report of the International Independent Fact-Finding Mission to Venezuela, before the United Nations Human Rights Council, evidenced, for the first time, the application of the Sippenhaft method. (El Pitazo: "El informe del año 2021 realizado por la Misión Internacional Independiente de Determinación de los Hechos en Venezuela, ante el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de Naciones Unidas, evidenció, por primera vez, la aplicación del método de Sippenhaft.")
  • The report presented Thursday by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission to Venezuela to the United Nations Human Rights Council revealed a pattern of serious human rights violations to stifle the opposition, including kidnappings, torture and even a Nazi method to intimidate detainees. (Infobae: "El informe presentado este jueves por la Misión Internacional Independiente de Determinación de los Hechos en Venezuela ante el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de Naciones Unidas reveló un patrón de graves violaciones de derechos humanos para sofocar a la oposición, lo que incluye secuestros, torturas y hasta un método nazi para amedrentar a los detenidos."
  • In point 73 of the report, the Mission denounced that agents of the General Directorate of Military Counterintelligence used "criminal tactics", including the kidnapping or detention of family members of opponents to achieve the arrests. This action is known as Sippenhaft, a collective punishment tactic based on the detention of family members of persecuted or political prisoners as a form of pressure. (El Nacional: "En el punto 73 del informe, la Misión denunció que los agentes de la Dirección General de Contrainteligencia Militar utilizaron «tácticas criminales», incluyendo el secuestro o la detención de miembros de la familia de opositores para lograr los arrestos. Esta acción es conocida como Sippenhaft, una táctica de castigo colectivo que se basa en la detención de familiares de perseguidos o presos políticos como forma de presión.")
This is not a misrepresentation of sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Thorough discussion generally requires back and forth over a period of time and responses which specifically respond to issues or arguments raised by the other editor. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Also, if this is to be relisted at 3O after discussion has occurred, please read and follow the instructions on the 3O page; the listing which was removed was noncompliant. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Sippenhaft punishment for saving Jews

[edit]

I have initiated a new section by adding a few words on a category fully left out: for saving Jews. Only Sippenhaft cases against Germans (or part-Germans, in Nazi eyes? See Leiss case) were dealt with. Timothy Snyder can be a source, one of many.

I was surprised about the fact that this large topic was never touched upon, but should I be surprised? Arminden (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sippenhaft&oldid=1271351708"