Talk:Sippenhaft

message: 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)
replies: text: "It was well known ..." is not a source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.114.179 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Several issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong translation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Sippenhaft is currently practiced by North Korea 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've answered you and you have consistently talked round the replies.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Either reread above or go to a remedial English school.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it up with the personal attacks. It shows something of your character, not mine. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Trump and Sippenhaft 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  British 

message: 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:
# 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?).
# A section describing the way the word/concept was used in Nazi Germany, then abandoned afterwards. Nobody has any complaints about this part!
# A list of similar concepts found in other traditions. This seems totally fine to me in light of the first section.
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is this article about? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with '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)

text: *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)
replies: text: Based on what you're saying, I think  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've started the fork, reverting this article largely to '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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Yes, it came from German, but this it is now widely used in English, as one can easily check . 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How come? I am not at all an expert in English, but simple Google search  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent clean-up 

message: here Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Link to the BLP discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nazi Sippenhaft punishment for saving Jews