Talk:Kin punishment

United States section

The U.S.is still proposed and therefore undue to include in this article.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested merge with Sippenhaft

• Discussion is at Talk:Sippenhaft. Please post comments on that page. – S. Rich (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

North Korea

Reference 5 is "amended" in 2018, and says it was "retrieved" in 2010, making it no longer relevant. Furthermore, a claim from an inmate that he was imprisoned without fair trial (or wrongly), is generally a non-reliable one, is not it?

Reference 6 is actually a Wikipedia article, should not it be disallowed?

89.222.164.65 (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I have restored and fixed the removed content. The WaPo link is perfectly reasonable sourcing. I don't see anything at the link in question describing an "amendment" in 2018. The article was updated in 2015 to update the story from their primary source, but not in ways material to the claim presented in the article. Calling claims about prison treatement "unreliable" because they come from an inmate is absurd - WaPo is WP:RS and Wikipedia policy is to assume they did their due diligence. Aside from which, the most important claim for the article's purposes is that Shin Dong-hyuk was born there, which would be rather difficult for him to fake.

The article also covers the second claim that was "cited" with a link to another article. The Kaechon internment camp is simply an example of the Kwan-li-so concentration camps being discussed, so I have copy-edited to make that clear and to repeat the citation for the second paragraph.

To others: Note that the criticism was levied unevenly, as comparable claims about other countries also currently lack proper sourcing. This article was recently cited for a popular and subsequently removed Reddit post, so further edit-warring by others is a possibility. 74.14.101.253 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I am skeptical that such a system exists in North Korea. The citations that were in place earlier linked to an organisation hat included CIA agents among its founders. Another source was Rado Free Asia, an outlet owned by the United States government which was founded to destabilise countries the United States does not support, and is infamous for publishing fake news.

Can we find independent academic sources that such a system exists in North Korea? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Radio Free Asia is considered a Reliable Source as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA) Eyudet (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Shin still maintains that he was born in prison, and here are some additional sources to address such morally deranged "skepticism."

• Kim Jong Un's North Korea (Defector Ma Yak-sang attests the existence of yeonjwaje and its importance to the survival of the state)
• Testimony of Kim Young-soon, whose family was imprisoned when she was charged with conspiring against the socialist system
• Interview with Kim Hye-sook, who was imprisoned after her grandfather defected to the south, and who also attests the practice of mutilative execution in the camps
• Anything written about Kang Chol-hwan, who was imprisoned at the age of 9 when his grandfather was charged with espionage

Wikipedia policy imposes no requirement for "academic" sources and the existence of yeonjwaje is a factual question, not merely an academic one. As the article says, many defectors claim first-hand knowledge that it exists. "Skepticism" would be more properly called delusion. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

North Korean defectors aren't always reliable sources of information on North Korea. Many have a financial incentive to lie given their desperate situation and the hunger for horror stories about NK, many of the highest profile celebrity defectors such as Shin Dong-hyuk and Yeonmi Park have been proven to have fabricated stories (they both wrote best-selling books), and this doesn't even cover the media coaching that they receive from both the South Korean and United States governments. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Where a defector has been found to have given false information, that is a problem of that defector and not of all defectors, however much you might wish (for God knows what reason) that it were the latter. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Russia

Hi! I checked section for Russia and decided to delete this after short research. Kin punishment for terrorists was, in fact, clickbait. Long story - it was a zakonoproekt (proposition of a law) by one member of parliament. No changes in Article №205 of Criminal Code (Terrorism) and their respective sub-articles and paragraphs were made. Source - https://rg.ru/2015/01/15/rodstvenniki.html (a proposition, in Russian) http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_10699/43942021d9206af7a0c78b6f65ba3665db940264/ - Article 205, no punishment for relatives Moreover, if we take a look at all sub-articles, at article 205.6 there is an explicit addition, that "Note. A person is not subject to criminal liability for failure to report the preparation or commission of a crime by his spouse or close relative." 176.59.174.180 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, that was widely practiced under Stalin (see Family members of traitors to the Motherland, for example), by Ramzan Kadyrov forces, etc. I see that was recently removed, but it needs to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is a ref (from 2016) . It says: "Donald J. Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate, was widely condemned when he called for the United States to “take out the families” of terrorists. His approach — even after he clarified that he was not talking about killing the relatives — was dismissed by many as immoral and unlawful. Yet, it is the very tactic that Russia has pursued for decades... In the conflict that began in Chechnya and has since metastasized into a loosely organized Islamic rebellion throughout the Caucasus region, Russian security services routinely arrest, torture and kill relatives, rights groups say." [Some examples]. Relatives were used as “hooks” to lure in militants. If the militant did not switch sides, the family member disappeared. ", etc. But a lot more details are here . My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Israel's inclusion

as @Bosacius said in his edit removing the section before, Israel currently doesn't punish it's citizens with Kin punishment under it's legal system nor under other circumstances. The source included was towards a human rights article about Israel killing innocent Palestinians.

Further, the first sentence in this section shows that it does not belong in this article "In the State of Israel, there is a legal prohibition against punishing relatives for the actions of a family member." Spencer707201 (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted to include Israel, as it involves measures such as the deportation of family members, punitive house demolitions, withholding of human remains, revocation of work permits, denial of visits to incarcerated relatives, and, in all cases, Israel's involvement in these punitive actions. Therefore, actions like these, which punish relatives, are indeed worthy of inclusion. Lf8u2 (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Spencer707201 Per WP:ARBECR, you are not permitted to edit in mainspace regarding the IP topic, as you were notified last month. Please self-revert and engage on the talk page instead of edit warring. Lf8u2 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm pretty happy with the page now. Its clearly been brigaded and has lost value by having more words devoted to Israel than the rest of the countries combined, while detracting away from the topic of Kin punishment entirely. Spencer707201 (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• These things are typically described in sources as collective punishment rather than "kin punishment". For example, this source says "collective punishment", not "kin punishment". And it is described already on the page . Hence, this content is basically a POV fork on this page. Yes, deportation of relatives would probably qualify, but hardly anything else. And even that should be supported by sources like here. Note that ref #18 should be excluded. It appears as a "security risk" on my browser. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  agree with that. should not be included, is probs WP:SYNTH User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Here is another issue. The government or whoever should say: "hey, we are punishing you for the guilt of your relatives" (this is how it was done in USSR, see Family members of a traitor to the Motherland, etc.). Limiting the access of relatives to the prison is very bad, but something entirely different. Demolishing the houses can be a variety of the kin punishment, but again, then an official must say that they specifically punish the relatives. I know that Ramzan Kadyrov said and did it in Chechnya (see direct quotation of Kadyrov here ), but not sure about the Israel. If they did, and this is sourced, then welcome to re-include. We have already a big page Israeli demolition of Palestinian property. According to Israeli government, they do it as a preventive anti-terrorist measure. According to critics, they do it to expand the Israeli settlements. Why kin punishment? My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  The argument that a practice can only be described as kin or collective punishment if a government explicitly declares "we are punishing you for the guilt of your relatives" imposes an standard that is not used in international law or academic scholarship. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits penalizing protected persons for acts they did not personally commit. There is no requirement that an occupying power admit punitive intent for a measure to fall within that prohibition. If such an admission were required, no state practice could ever be identified as collective or kin punishment, torture, apartheid, or discrimination, since states routinely deny or reframe prohibited conduct as "security" or "deterrence" measures, as Israel frequently does. Determinations of kin or collective punishment instead rely on objective criteria, including who is targeted, whether those targeted bear individual responsibility, and whether harm is imposed on the basis of familial association, as assessed by courts, legal scholars, and international bodies.

  Even if one were to accept the flawed premise that collective or kin punishment requires explicit governmental acknowledgment, Israeli practice does not consistently avoid such statements. Israeli officials and military authorities have openly stated that measures imposed on relatives of attackers are intended to deter future attacks by imposing costs on family members, have explicitly referred to targeting the "kin of the terrorists", and have justified economic, housing, or residency sanctions on the grounds that harming relatives may influence familial or community behavior. Israeli legislation and Supreme Court rulings have authorized measures that apply solely on the basis of familial relationship, including punitive house demolitions, deportation of relatives, and revocation of permits. Regardless of the terminology used, these measures functionally penalize individuals for acts they did not personally commit. Under international humanitarian law, it is the effects of a policy, not the labels adopted by the state, that determine whether it constitutes collective or kin punishment. Accordingly, scholars, UN bodies, the ICRC, and human rights organizations have repeatedly identified a range of Israeli policies as collective or kin punishment, even while Israel disputes that characterization. Per WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, the views of independent experts and institutions carry more weight than a state's own legal defense, which is already represented in the article.

  As for the undue weight tag noting that there is "Much more text on Israel than any other country", this reflects differences in documentation and sourcing rather than editorial bias. Israeli policies in the occupied territories have been examined extensively over decades by courts, UN bodies, human rights organizations, and academic literature, producing a large body of high-quality secondary sources. Sections on other countries can and should be expanded where comparable practices are documented in RS, but well-sourced material should not be removed or minimized solely to achieve symmetry or brevity where the evidentiary record is uneven. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree: if multiple RS say that the people were punished specifically for the guilt of their relatives (and it is consistent with facts), this belongs to the page. In this regard, the image of Romanov family is probably OK. The North Korean practices are also a textbook example. I am not sure why Stalinist USSR is missing, it should be included. But not allowing relatives to visit prisoners or withholding of human remains are very bad, but definitely out of the scope for this page. Something should be fixed. For example, we have a huge page, Israeli demolition of Palestinian property. Should it be noted on this page? I am not sure because this is a collective punishment, but not necessarily a "kin punishment". And if we mention it, this should be done only briefly. No need to create content forks. This looks like a copy paste from page "collective punishment": "The benchmark for determining collective punishment in international law..." My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

This was not a copy-paste from collective punishment, as the content was not there. If you consider that some material is better suited for that page, the right move would've been to move it there instead of merely removing it from here. I have relocated the relevant material there so it is not lost.

Regarding the scope of this page: house demolitions in the context of kin punishment are definitely in scope. Israeli policy allows the destruction of the homes of relatives of Palestinians accused of crimes even when those families had no proven involvement in the offense. The military authority invoked (Article 119) explicitly treats it as a punitive measure. This punitive policy is structurally designed to target the property of blameless relatives solely because of their familial relationship to an accused individual. The same applies to the withholding of human remains; the cited source explicitly frames this within the context of kinship and familial targeting, emphasizing how human rights jurisprudence specifically protects the rights of the relatives to go through the grieving process and practice religious burial rites. When a state holds a body as leverage to exert pressure on their family members, legal scholarship analyzes it precisely as a collective penalization targeting the kin.

And regarding the Israeli demolition of Palestinian property page, you have answered your own question; it is collective punishment, but not necessarily kin punishment. The kin punishment aspect is covered here under "Punitive house demolitions", while the other aspects can be addressed in more detail on that page. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The Military demolition of houses as a counter-insurgency tactics has a long history and indeed was described as a collective punishment in many cases. But I need to read more. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The sources should be secondary and directly on the subject of this page. For example, ,,,. Otherwise, this is WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)