Talk:International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 8, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
December 12, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
May 31, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Emergency medicine and EMS (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
WikiProject Organizations (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Switzerland (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

red cross vs. red crescent[edit]

I askes myself why the red cross was seen as a symbol for christianity. Is it only because it is a cross? Maybe there should be a sort descprition about this. yanneman 19:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the ones who protested, yes, apparently it's just because it's a cross. --Safe-Keeper 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

in the red cross/red crescent section the red crescent origin isnt explained at all (its introduction into the federation, first national crescent etc.) and the crescents actions barely mentioned... kind of retarded, is there no knowledge of the red crescent history?? I read the whole section just to get to the red crescent origin and i read it to the end without discovering anything.. not very encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.223.1 (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Red Cross is the Swiss flag reversed, in honor of the country of it's origin (Henry Dunant was a Swiss banker). My source is that I work for the Red Cross... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.11.18 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Date of meeting[edit]

Is this true ? "On October 29,1863 sixteen countries finished meeting in Geneva and agreed to form the International Red Cross." On First Geneva Convention, the date was August 22,1864. Which is the correct date ? -- PFHLai 07:26, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

They are both correct - there was a meeting in Geneva in October 1863; the first convention was ratified almost one year later. See [1] and [2].-- ALoan (Talk) 22:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The WWW is giving me some very contradictory answers for how many goverments met, what they did and when in 1863/1864, so if anyone has an authoritative source, please correct the History section. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Red Cross or red cross?[edit]

It seems that on the official site [3], the term is "red cross" when referring to the symbol and "Red Cross" when referring to the organization. The same would also apply to "red crescent" (as on the linked page), "red lion and sun", and "red diamond". The usage in the article was somewhat confusing, so I tried to standardize it. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Does the title need the words "international" and "movement"? Maurreen 05:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think so, yes: is its official name, to distinguish it from the ICRC and IFRCS, and the terms "Red cross" and "Red crescent" are somewhat ambiguous. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The word Movement refers that the Red Cross organisations are not just organisations. The organisations as a whole represent its principles and values. It is a social movement. So we use the word "Movement," representing our ideas, mission, mandate, fundamental principles, and of course, our organisations. Besides, as a professional staff of the Red Cross, I have never heard, and the colleagues from the International Federation also have never said, that there is an abbreviation like "IFRC" or "IFRCS." Please consider changing it into "the Federation." On the other hand, the International Committee of the Red Cross calls themselves "ICRC," so there is no problem about this abbreviation. -- Tyddylee 16:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. The Federation uses http://www.ifrc.org as its website, although, admittedly, it does not abbreviate its name elsewhere on its website: at least our article is at International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. It would probably be better if we to referred to "the Movement" and "the Federation" throughout, rather than making up our own abbreviations. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which: Should "International Red Cross" redirect to International Committee of the Red Cross and not here? David Gale 00:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no such term "International Red Cross." The Red Cross is comprised of the ICRC, the Federation, and the National Societies. If you want to use the term as such, you should add a "Movement": "International Red Cross Movement." -- Tyddylee 16:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks: understood, and I hope the articles make that clear. The question is, which article should a person be directed to if they type in "International Red Cross". Do you have any views? For my money, the Movement is the widest body, so the best place to start, but the ICRC or Federation could be what the reader was looking for. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Could someone please find or draw a public domain red cross / red crescent logo like the one on the top left here that we can use as a headline image. Many thanks! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Geneva Conventions do not allow anyone except the armed forces of signatory powers and the neutral, impartial charity organisations like the ICRC or National Societies to use the emblem(s). I wonder if you draw this or put this on the website you should get permission of usage from the Federation Secretariat (secretariat@ifrc.org). -- Tyddylee 16:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Surely you are not saying that the Geneva Convention stops us illustrating our enyclopedia articles with a red cross or red crescent? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as I understand, yes. The Geneva Committe regulates who uses the cross and crescent and who doesn't. In essence, the ICRC owns the 'copyright' of both emblems. To use them, you need permission from the ICRC, which can probably by easily obtained by e-mailing them. --Safe-Keeper 04:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

The intro sucks. It doesn't introduce anything. It wades into fine distinctions between things the casual reader doesn't even know about yet.

I suggest the "intro" be moved down and re-named "terminology" or "organization". --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 18:53, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Translation of the article from the German Wikipedia[edit]

Dear Wikipedians, I've prepared a translation of the respective article from the German Wikipedia. Compared to the current version of the English article, the German article provides a lot more details and information. I kindly ask you to check the translation at

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

As I'm not a native speaker of the English language, the translation probably contains some unusual or even obscure wording. You are welcome to edit the translation directly. In addition to that leave a comment, either here, on the discussion page of the translation or on my personal discussion page. Any ideas or comments are highly appreciated. My ultimate goal is to transfer the translated version into the English Wikipedia. Best Regards, Uwe from the German Wikipedia

Wow - that is much more comprehensive. My only comment would be to make sure that nothing that is mentioned here is lost (for example, the red chevrons are absent). Perhaps the simplest thing would be to copy it to the live article or International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement/temp and let the wiki process take its course. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Now can someone make sure that the parts that were mentioned in the old article but are not in the new, much better, version are added in (the red chevrons leap out, but there could well be more). -- ALoan (Talk) 07:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, it was late when I transferred it and didn't have time to do everything. There is some news about the symbol from the last few days it seems. They are planning to hold another conference about it. So, this needs to be properly included. Tfine80 16:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Fine - I understand. Thank you again for the fine revisions (the above was not meant as a criticism, just a note that we have some points to bring back). If I get the chance, I'll read the two side-by-side and add back things I think we need myself. -- ALoan (Talk) 06:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone's message[edit]

The following is not my message, but it was on the article page itself above the cleanup blurb. "Somebody please clean this up. See also Red Cross and Red Crescent. There should be three different articles and the information should not overlap significantly. Thanx!" Jogloran 13:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Right now, the article links to Red Cross and Red Crescent, which redirect back to the same article. This needs to be fixed, with by removing the links or by creating three separate articles. 24.208.178.93 17:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Refactor[edit]

Been refactoring some of the pages for clarity. Also, since the only abbreviation Red Cross uses is "the Movement", that has been added EVERYWHERE as the standard abbreviation. Started on intro too. Added short Jargon explanation as "terminology". Mind you, this is temporary bis unseres Deutsches freund integrates his much improved and more comprehensive version into the main site. Jamcnair 00:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Spaces[edit]

Why do you think we need those spaces, NoseNuggets? Tfine80 02:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Article split, and symbols[edit]

Article's getting very long; woudn't a split-out of the lengthy section on symbols be a plan? Secondly, according to this web page[4], the red crescent symbols (including the Soviet Cross+Crescent, which might be included here too) are shown points-towards-hoist (i.e., to the left). Is actual practice variable? Alai 05:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the article all in one as it is right now, though if there is a consensus on splitting that's fine for me, too. In my humble opinion, it is more coherent as it is right now. And I see no lemma for an article about the symbols which is plausible AND concise (I've thought about that for a while, already). The closest to being plausible might be something like "Symbols of the Geneva Conventions" or something similar which is not very concise. Regarding the Red Crescent, the first Geneva Convention does not contain any specific definition of the shape of the crescent. The "Regulations on the use of the Emblem of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent by the National Societies" stipulate in article 5 ("Design of the emblem") that "The shape and direction of the crescent are not regulated." But both the ICRC and the International Federation use the Red Crescent with the open side to the right as you can see on their respective websites and in numerous publications. The symbol used by the society of the Soviet Union was somewhat special because strictly speaking, it was not a national society on itself - it was an alliance of (formally) semi-independent national societies of the respective member republics of the Soviet Union (called the "Soviet Alliance of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies"). Some of these societies used the Cross while some used the Crescent. The use of the double emblem by the Alliance had representative purposes only, and the left-sided Crescent was probably used to distinguish the double emblem from the crescent as used by most national societies. The use of the double emblem has never been authorized by the ICRC for any single national society. --Uwe 09:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It is my thought that the symbol pictures need to be of a uniform size, and not be too big, to make the page more plesant and readable. Also, I do think it is important to include the new hybrid symbol for use within Isreal at this time. Whether any future hybrid symbols should be included is up for future discusion. Donovan Ravenhull 21:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize for reverting your changes to the size of the emblems. I did a partial revert of several recent changes which introduced a significant amount of wrong information. Your edit was lost due to an edit conflict with my revert. Again, I'm sorry. See my comment below regarding the hybrid crystal emblem. --Uwe 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, anybody else feel it would better to use the same style pic of the new Red Crystal flag instead of the photo of somebody holding it? There is nothing wrong with the photo, but it does not match the style of the section when compared to the other illustrations. Donovan Ravenhull 11:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I already removed the photo and reverted to the old picture. There is something wrong with the photo, namely the fact that it's non-free from a copyright point of view. While that is acceptable in the English Wikipedia according to fair use rules, it is not recommended to use non-free pictures if not absolutely required. --Uwe 11:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the conversation is old, but I agree that the article should be split. We can keep a main page that describes the Movement and all of its parts, as Uwe suggests, because it truly is a confusing assemblage of organizational parts. However, users should have access to a specific ICRC article, at the very least, rather than having to comb through the combined article to glean relevant tidbits. Draeco 01:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the article should be split because of the arguments Uwe has made. What does an ICRC article actually offer? A traditional encyclopedia would do it the same way we have done it here. Tfine80 20:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I've written a longer comment on my talk page regarding this issue. --Uwe 20:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've also posted there, but the discussion is so relevant to the article (rather than Uwe himself) that I'm going to post the conversation directly below as a new section. - Draeco 06:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Red Cross article split, part two[edit]

Greeting Uwe, I came across the Red Cross article recently and was shocked to realize we have only one huge article to describe the whole Movement. You and the other editors have done a great job, the article is terrific, but I think it should be split -- or maybe "create subsidiaries" is a better term. We can certainly keep one unified article that discusses the broader Movement and the relationship between all of its parts. But, we should also have subsidiary main articles as well. Users shouldn't have to comb through the huge Movement article to glean bits of information about, say, the ICRC. I think the ICRC in particular screams for a separate article, plus probably the Red Cross Federation and even some national chapters if some industrious editors are willing to write it. I've only read Forsythe's two books about the ICRC, and I don't have your command of German which would greatly expand my access to the relevant literature, but I'd like to start the subsidiary articles and hopefully get your help. If you know anyone else who's passionate about the subject, sign them up as well. Thanks - Draeco 01:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Actually I'm still skeptical about splitting the article. But I've realized by now that there is sort of a a cultural difference between the English and the German Wikipedia regarding this matter. The respective article in the German Wikipedia, of which the English is a translation, passed its FA candidature with flying colors. Splitting it was proposed, but rejected by a large margin. So splitting topics into smaller pieces seems to be a special feature of the English Wikipedia. I still think that even a larger article like this can provide easy access to specific information as long as it's clearly arranged. Which I tried for this article by separating the ICRC and the Federation. In my humble opinion, it's pretty easy to find specific information for each part of the movement by using the table of contents at the beginning of the article. The problem is that (from my personal experience) most people outside of the Red Cross don't even know that there is no such thing like an "International Red Cross" but actually two organizations distinct from but also related with each other.
The bottom line is that I strongly believe that each article should be able to provide all relevant information on its own. Keep in mind that there are ways and methods to use Wikipedia content outside of the Wikipedia, and specifically offline from Internet access. How about printing an article to reading stuff for your next flight? Also, the German Wikipedia goes to print in a book series. Hypertext is only a wonderful invention as long as you have all content available. If the aim is to provide articles which can stand on their own, then separate articles create unnecessary overlapping. In the case of the Red Cross that would mean for example to duplicate part of the history information in separate articles about the ICRC and the Federation because Solferino was primarily the reason why the ICRC came into existence, but somehow the Federation also wouldn't exist without Solferino (or without the ICRC, for that matter - the creation of the Federation was a try to disempower the ICRC).
Now, as said I'm still skeptical. But on the other hand, the article failed FA in the English Wikipedia precisely because most people who voted felt that it was to long. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so I'm prepared to accept whatever is seen as being the best solution, no matter whether I personally agree with that decision. The article is not mine, I merely created most of its current content and provided it to be used and modified by others. I suggest that you start to write the subsidiary articles as "working versions" under your user page so they can be made round & ready before moving them to the main namespace. --Uwe 08:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It's always a pleasure to work with a civil editor like yourself Uwe, and I know that can be tough when you've done so much work on the article. However, I do disagree with you, and I'll try to address your points in order. First, I don't know about the German wikipedia. Second, the fact that most people don't know that two distinct organizations exist is precisely the reason we should have separate articles delineating the Federation and ICRC clearly; they are separate entities and deserve individual articles. Third, I have a practical objection to your complete-article philosophy because articles naturally split and evolve independently as they grow on Wikipedia: History of the United States was once once a basically stand-alone article but has since divided and grown. There is simply too much good info on the separate parts of the Red Cross Movement to contain within one article, especially when it comes to intra-organizational dynamics that don't belong in the Movement article. We need subsidiaries. Fourth, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we can't keep articles long and comprehensive for the sake of hard-copy readers. Fifth, you have an excellent point about the overlapping histories of the Movement/ICRC/Federation/national societies, and I haven't yet figured out how to resolve it. Sixth, after an abortive attempt to start the ICRC article here, I have in fact moved a working ICRC article to this section of my namespace. Feel free to contribute there, keep the conversation going here, and here's to a civilized resolution. - Draeco 06:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Partial revert[edit]

As per my edit from 21:13, 8 December 2005, I reverted several of the edits which were done on December 8 because they were incorrect:

  • first, removal of the word "section" in the context of the Hague Convention: the Hague Convention X was a single and complete treaty, not section X of another convention.
  • second, removal of the picture which was titled "The newly revised emblem for MDA within Israel": that was simply wrong because within Israel, MDA will continue to use the Red Shield of David as it is used now. The Red Shield of David incorporated within the Red Crystal will be used for abroad missions. The new rules are explained in the section "Red Crystal: the third Protocol emblem" and can be verified via the ICRC website. They have a good "Questions and answers" section about the new emblem.
  • third, I reverted the part about the Red Shield of David to the old version. The statement "Israel has recently succeeded in establishing the emblem as a third protection symbol in the context of the Geneva Conventions." was utterly wrong. Again, check the facts about the use of the Red Shield of David, which can be used for indicative purposes in Israel and abroad, and the use of the Red Crystal, which is the new (and fourth) emblem for protective purposes within the context of the Geneva Conventions.

In addition, I updated the number of recognized national societies. --Uwe 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Red crystal[edit]

Does anyone have a link to the actual vote tally of each society (i.e. who abstained, who vote yet, who no)? Or has only the numbers been given? I've looked at the ICRC and the IFRC websites but no luck :-( 203.118.182.13 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I read somewhere that most arab states who attended voted against, as did Cuba, China and North Korea. Maybe that helps. --Uwe 22:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the Red Crystal article be merged with this article.

Draig goch20 13:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Who founded the party of five?[edit]

Did Gustave Moynier or Henry Dunant found the commitee of five? --Gbleem 00:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

(Party of Five is also a tv show that I never watched.)--Gbleem 00:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I answered your question in detail on the discussion page of the article about Gustave Moynier. --Uwe 09:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Red Crystal[edit]

whoops, i should have RTFA first, ignore this

== Flags

I haven't checked who's handling the "flag" images, but as you can see by (e.g.) Image:Croixrouge logos.jpg and Image:Red-crystal-pic.jpg, the "flags" for these emblems don't seem to usually be standard 2:3 - they seem to be more often square, in the traditional of the flag of Switzerland which the original Red Cross was spawned from. Even if using the emblems on 2:3ish flags is somewhat popular (and I'm sure it is), it's clearly not what official-types lean towards. Also despite this article's title, all the information in all the articles is rather accurately on "emblems", not flags, so having flag images (and even having 'flag' in the image filenames) is strange.

Also is there any official basis for the variant flags with the older emblems contained within the crystal? ¦ Reisio 14:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm the person who drew those images. The reason why the flag proportions are 2:3 instead of 1:1 is that the 2:3 variant (thanks to flag manufacturers) is the more common flag seen. Also, if one reads the Third Protocol carefully, it states that recognized emblems of mercy can be placed inside the crystal, so the illustrations show the permitted legal defacements (with the Magen David, Cross, Crescent, and the Lion with Sun). Damon Seath 00:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Articles - Neither merge, nor articles. Discuss.[edit]

I think we should leave the symbol articles out of the main article. BECAUSE. This article is already too long. Cernen 00:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, this article should be split into several articles, not having articles be merged into it. Jon Harald Søby \ no na 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The symbol article should not be merged into this one. Both because of the length and because the history of the symbols is a noteworthy subject. --GunnarRene 23:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

question[edit]

Isn't keeping foreign prisoners hidden from the red cross a war crime?

--grazon 02:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent revert of changes made by User:Francis Schonken (Revision as of 13:07, 22 June 2006)[edit]

I've reverted those changes for the following reasons:

First, the symbols are not defined in the statutes of the ICRC. In their function as protection symbols (being the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, the Red Lion and the Red Crystal), they are defined in the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols. In their function as organizational emblems (being the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and the Red Crystal), they are defined in the statutes of the International Movement - and those statutes (not the statutes of the ICRC) were recently amended to include the Red Crystal. In addition to that, the Red Shield of David is allowed for indicative use as per Article 3 of the third Additional Protocol, without being explicitly named (see below). So the statutes of the ICRC are of no relevance for recognition of the symbols (see the full text of the statutes of the ICRC).

"The 29th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent has amended the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to incorporate the additional emblem of the red crystal, which now has the same status as the red cross and red crescent." ICRC website - Press Release 06/65, 22-06-2006
Can't be too difficult to get that on the "International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement" page, can it? As long as the text of the updated statutes (clearly, the ICRC press communication of 22/06/2006 is not seeing the unammended March 1998 version of the statutes as the "current" version) and/or the related "ammendements" are not available, the "current event" tag should probably best stay up on the ICRC page, I suppose. --Francis Schonken 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I will try to explain it in another way. The statutes of the ICRC were NOT changed as per 22-06-2006. The 1998 version provided via the weblink above is indeed still the current one. The Red Crystal issue has no implications for the statutes of the ICRC. What was changed were the statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Two different legal documents, as the ICRC is an organizational part of, but legally independent from the movement.

Second, after explaining in the article the difference in the meaning of the symbols, being on the one hand protection symbols in situations of armed conflicts (protective use) and on the other hand organizational symbols (indicative use), it makes little sense to divide them into "Symbols recognised in the statutes of ICRC" and "Other". As a protection symbol, the Red Lion is still part of the Geneva Conventions while it fell into disuse as an organizational emblem. On the other hand, the Red Shield of David is an established national organizational emblem, and has gained some kind of official recognition for indicative use through paragraph 1b of Article 3 ("Indicative use of the third Protocol emblem") of the third Additional Protocol, which permits incorporation into the Red Crystal of "another emblem which has been in effective use by a High Contracting Party and was the subject of a communication to the other High Contracting Parties and the International Committee of the Red Cross through the depositary prior to the adoption of this Protocol". So it makes little sense to divide the symbols into those which are recognized in some way, and those which are not, as all five of the symbols are recognized one way or the other either for indicative use, for protective use or for both.

See quote above, only *three* of them are defined of equal stature in the current version of the ammended statutes, or are you implying that "user:UW" is a more reliable source than an ICRC press communiqué published on their website *today*? --Francis Schonken 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The information provided in the press communiqué is only a small part of the story. One might guess that the ICRC only provides those points relevant to the current decision in the respective press communiqué, not the whole and complicated legal grounds for the emblem issue which are covered in several(!) different(!) legal documents and discussed in numerous lenghthy articles. One additional fact not mentioned in the press communiqué, but easy to verify by reading the texts of the respective documents, is that four of the symbols (namely the cross, the crescent, the lion and the crystal) are of equal stature as protection symbols, as per the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. Another fact not mentioned in the press communiqué but easy to verify is that the Red Shield of David enjoys recognition for indicative use by Magen David Adom via article 3 of the third addition protocol, and therefore is on equal stature with the other symbols as far as indicative use at home of the respective national society is concerned. Another fact not mentioned in the press communiqué but easy to verify is that, despite the addition of the Red Crystal to the statutes of the movement, the movement will still use the name "International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement", and the ICRC will still continue to be the "International Committee of the Red Cross". In other words, in practice the only symbols on equal stature are the cross and the crescent, and it remains to been seen (probably 10 or 20 years from now) whether and how often the Red Crystal will actually be used in practice. The current decision deals with ammending the statutes of the International Movement only, and specifically with Article 4 of these statutes which define the "Conditions for recognition of National Societies". One of these 10 conditions is that in order to be recognized, a national society shall "Use the name and emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent in conformity with the Geneva Conventions", and that point was ammended to include the Red Crystal. By the way: condition 1, namely that such a society shall "Be constituted on the territory of an independent State where the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field is in force." was ammended as well to make it possible to recognize the Palestine society, but that's a point not mentioned in the press communiqué.

Third, the term "third Protocol emblem" is indeed the official name of the Red Crystal. See paragraph 2 of Article 2 of AP-3, "This distinctive emblem is referred to in this Protocol as the "third Protocol emblem". --Uwe 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't want to run any risks there, it is not unthinkable that a new ammendement uses another name. --Francis Schonken 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The name is not defined in the statutes of either the ICRC or the International Movement but in the third Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Any future ammendment to the statutes of the movement will have no effect on the name of the symbol as defined in this protocol. --Uwe 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel admittance[edit]

Israel admitted to Red Cross http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/06/22/israel.redcross.ap/index.html --80.181.144.148 08:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC) My edit stating why the the Red Star of David was omitted stating lack of back up. There is no back up on the symbol prolifieration claim either and the IRC has shown itself to be a biased orginization.205.188.116.74 15:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


I also put an edit stating the reason that a Red Star was not admitted was an excuse, it was reverted by someone using the Red Cross/Crescent forum as a sourece. That is biased. Lets use some logic they claim symbol polifiration but a few years earlier the Red Lion was accepted. Lets be honest it was anti-Israel and Anti-Semitism if you accept the Red Crescent you have to accept the Red Star.Reapor 01:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The source I provided was written by François Bugnion who is Director of International Law and Cooperation at the ICRC and one of the most respected scholars in the field of Red Cross history and International Humanitarian Law. He has documented the debate around the emblem issue in various publications since about 30 years, and he has written the 1,000+ pages standard volume about the ICRC titled "The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Protection of War Victims". If you would check the source then you would see that the 1929 Conference made it clear that no requests for additional emblems beyond the Cross, the Crescent and the Lion would be accepted in the future. That was two years BEFORE the Magen David Adom came into existence, and 17 years BEFORE the state of Israel was born. In addition to that, the ICRC has denied similar requests from other national societies, some of which are listed in the article. These rejected proposals included the Mehrab-e-Ahmar (Red Archway) from the national aid society of Afghanistan in 1935 (just four years after the Red Star of David was rejected), a symbol with a clear Muslim meaning. Similarly, proposals based on other religious backgrounds were rejected as well, like the combination of the Red Cross with a red flame (based on buddhist traditions) used by Sapa Unalom Daeng, the national aid society of Thailand (then Siam), or proposals by Sri Lanka and India for a Red Swastika which is based on Hindu and Buddhist traditions. The main reason why the Red Crescent and the Red Lion were accepted was simple - they were in use for quite some time before they became officially recognized. The Crescent was de-facto in use since the Russo-Turkish War from 1876 to 1878 (and respected by Russia back then), and the Red Lion at least since the Hague Conference of 1899 when the Persian Empire requested recognition for the first time. For the 1906 revision of the Geneva Convention, which neither recognized the Crescent nor the Lion, Persia and the Ottoman Empire filed official reservations regarding their respective symbols. So the Crescent had been in de-facto use for about 50 years and the Lion for about 30 years before they were recognized. --Uwe 09:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ICRC article created[edit]

Building upon the fine work of editors Uwe, Tfine80, and company, I have created a new article for the International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC is a distinct organization that deserves its own article. The Movement article has become too long; several editors have noted that, and it was one of the main reasons the article was rejected from FA status here. The new article focusses on the ICRC specifically and only mentions the other parts of the Movement where appropriate. This Movement article is perfectly valid, but much of its material specific to the ICRC may be redundant now.

The work is based upon this revision of the Movement article from 2 May 2006. I have left the history section untouched: it is a straight copy of the "The International Committee of the Red Cross" section of the Movement article at the time of my writing. The history could remain consolidated in the Movement article, be parsed out to the separate articles, or given its own article. Until that's decided, I've pasted the relevant parts into the ICRC article as well. - Draeco 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the move proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves. You may view the new article at User:Draeco/ICRC, and please share your thoughts here at the move discussion on the ICRC talk page. - Draeco 17:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Countries Involved[edit]

Shouldn't the countries currently involved in the ICRC and IFRC be listed? I think it would be a good idea. [5]I'm not sure if this is the list of current countries, but it might be.

There are no countries "involved" in the ICRC and the IFRC. Members of the ICRC are individuals of Swiss nationality, members of the International Federation are national aid societies which are, in most countries, organized as private associations. As for the state parties to the Geneva Conventions: currently all independent states as recognized by the UN have ratified them. So what point has such a list in the article? --Uwe 21:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, how about a list of countries that the International Federation are in? WolfInExile 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, members of the International Federation are national aid societies, not countries. For a list of these societies, see List of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. There is a link to that list in the introduction of this article. --Uwe 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Name Change?[edit]

Now that they added the Red Crystal, are they going to rename it International Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal Movement, or is the current name going to remain? Arbiteroftruth 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope not. "Red Crystal Movement" sounds like a new age religion. Sadena 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Both the ICRC and the Federation will not change their name, that means the ICRC will still be the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Federation will still be the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Hence, the name of the movement won't change either. See the last question on this FAQ page. --Uwe 22:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to create a Federation article[edit]

It is proposed that User:Draeco/Fed be moved into the main namespace, thus creating an article for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. This article move/creation would in actuality be a part of the ongoing effort to split the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement article, a need that was identified when the Movement article was nominated for FA status here. A separate ICRC article has already been created in a similar manner, but unlike that earlier split, this one is basically just a reorganization of the Federation material now found in the Movement article. Please opine at User talk:Draeco/Fed. - Draeco 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding a link[edit]

I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new branch of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about preparing a disaster kit would be appropriate and mutually beneficial, particularly because all of the tips and most of the footage are from an interview with a Red Cross official. The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=159 please consider it. Jrosenfe 14:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Johnson & Johnson sueing American Red Cross[edit]

A story on slashdot[1] tells the following:

Johnson & Johnson, the health-products giant that uses a red cross as its trademark, is suing the American Red Cross, demanding the charity halt its use of the red cross symbol on products it sells to the public. It seems J&J began using the trademark in 1887, 6 years after the Red Cross was formed, but 13 years before the charitable organization was chartered by Congress. Lately the ARC has begun licensing the symbol to third parties to use on fund-raising products such as home emergency kits.

It's source is in the International Herald Tribune Source from the Associated Press: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/09/america/NA-GEN-US-Red-Cross-Lawsuit.php

I think this needs to be mixed into this article or the American Red Cross article, I wasn't sure so I put it here. 72.154.21.68 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This topic has been included in the page about the Emblems of the Red Cross which is where I think it belongs. (Timoluege)

Is Red Cresent have their own parade???[edit]

Please someone tell me. Please.Putera Luqman Tunku Andre 17:05, 5 February

Hilal e Ahmar[edit]

Should Hilal e Ahmar redirect here? Should this name be included in this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates[edit]

What location is indicated by the coordinates? It's not clear from context. Trivialist (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism[edit]

An edit I made was reverted by another wikipedian who called it "vandalism". I dispute this characterization.

It took a few minutes to find the references I needed to flesh out the new section I added.

Repeat. Not vandalism. Geo Swan (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Report[edit]

-- 88.75.208.235 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

   * Maurice Rossel: Besuch im Ghetto
   * Vojtech Blodig: Anmerkungen zu Maurice Rossels Bericht
Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.245 (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

gotta be strong win it save the people of are land

Aid during WWII?[edit]

I'm wondering how the respective red cross movements got their P.O.W. parcels to the other side. Did they contact both sides and arranged for a place to hand over the stuff to their counterparts? Or did they deliver these things all the way to the doorstep? Currently nothing is mentioned about, for example, how 1.1 million parcels managed to reach inmates in German camps. -- MiG (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize[edit]

It should be noted that this prize was specifically awarded on three occasions to the ICRC and once to the IFRC (and not to their parent organization - the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement). Accordingly the appropriate templates and categories should instead appear in the ICRC and IFRC articles and not here. Davshul (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Appeal for making fundraising and donation accountable....for....[edit]

the sake of anti-corruption. See

--58.38.46.188 (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Cablegate"[edit]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/iranian-spies-red-crescent-war and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/174875 Other sources: NYTimes.com, Monsters + Critics, Der Spiegel, WaPo etc. As is, I have seen no allegations in the leaked cables about any entity other than Iran doing this type of stuff, but it stands to reason that the Iranians (if guilty of this) wouldn't have been the first to think "Hey, we can put a red cross/crescent on a plane and load it full of X" - so please add anything similar you can find re: USA, allied countries, Europeans etc so we can avoid Wikipedia being charged with only reporting IRCRC bad stuff related to anti-US forces. Also suggest creating a "Controversy" section or similar to house both Cablegate and any other reasonable/widely reported allegations. Pär Larsson (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Added section and stole wording from Iranian page, added "allegations" and specific conflicts mentioned. Concerned about NPOV, so really we should have a bit more information if available re: use of similar tactics by US/allied countries. Also screwed up the minor/major edit thing. Sorry. Pär Larsson (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If there were allegations to suport an usuable direction of the outcome it would become a silent war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.89.222 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ref to "WWF" in "Criticisms" page[edit]

This section has already been flagged [when defined as?], however I think someone should look into what WWF they're referring to. I'm not familiar with the incident, but I'm pretty sure they don't mean the "World Wrestling Federation," but if they mean the World Wildlife Fund (as one might infer from context), it should be clarified as such, with appropriate citation. Also, the World Wildlife Fund has recently been renamed to the World Wide Fund for Nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkamouflage (talkcontribs) 20:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have seen the documentary, the reference is to World Wildlife Fund, of course. I'll fix it.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
This section is very confused. This is partly because various sources give quite different accounts of what is supposed to have happened. However it is clear that the current text is highly misleading. The article claims that "the British" carried out the "massacre". However, this [6] summary by the filmmakers clearly says it was Indonesian troops. There is a confusing reference to "mercenaries" employed by Nick van den Burg and to an SAS man who says that there were British military advisers present (not at the incident itself, seemingly). Even if the mercenaries included people of British nationality, that's not "the British". Also, the incident is described in this account implies that villagers were just attacked for no reason. In some of the more lurid versions the Red Cross negotiator is portrayed as directing the "massacre". In others she is present and in others (including the summary linked) she had left some while earlier. In the last version, the only link to the Red Cross is that the local people thought that the helicopter was the Red Cross's (either because of its colour, as the RC say, or because an RC flag was being misused). There is also a question whether this can be called a massacre at all. This wasn't "innocent villagers" meeting the helicopter. They were part of a negotiating team liaising with the kidnappers. Accounts of what happened seem very vague. Yes, the Indonesian military under Suharto was notorious for acts of extreme brutality, as we know, and I don't want to sound as though I'm making excuses, but this account needs to be less confused. Paul B (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Having looked into this a bit more, I get the impression that the current website about the documentary is essentially back-pedaling on the now proven-false allegations that were originally made, and that claims about "the British" as well as the Red Cross are now being transferred to the Indonesian army. I assume this is in response to new information about the incident that has since emerged, but it is not explicit and accessible sources remain unclear. It is clear that the report said that there was intentional deception by a military unit, which clearly wanted to convince the locals that Red Cross 'copter was landing, though whether they actually used the logo or just painted the 'copter white is unclear. Paul B (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Example passages:

"Its 25-member committee has a unique authority under international humanitarian law to protect the life and dignity of the victims of international and internal armed conflicts. " "On an international level, the Federation leads and organizes, in close cooperation with the National Societies, relief assistance missions responding to large-scale emergencies. " Jh1234l (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Those are both verifiable statements of fact. The ICRC is literally the only institution identified by name in International humanitarian law, ie "unique." Can you try to explain why you think this article is in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING? VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Please first WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS before we do any more edits.
"To protect the life and dignity of the victims"
That sounds like advertising to me. Instead of using a line that sounds like a WP:SLOGAN, show some verifiable examples of their charity work. It shouldn't be hard to find sources that talk about the NATURE of them, not a WP:SLOGAN. However, the other parts of the article are fine. I apologize for not using the "ADVERT|SECTION" instead.Jh1234l (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
There are scores of examples already existing in the article. The lede is supposed to be concise and summarize the key points, which is why the examples and extended history appear later in the article. Pulling them into the lede would not be an improvement. WP:SLOGAN is an essay. VQuakr (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello! I just wanted to say that I am around and watching. If anyone makes proposals to improve the article then I would comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think either of the quoted passages is "advertising": they are statements of fact about what the organisation does. PamD 17:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • But the article could certainly benefit from more inline citations - that's why it was delisted as a Good Article in 2009. The greatest addition of content was [2005] by Tfine80, who unfortunately seems not to have edited in the last year. PamD 17:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Islamic states?[edit]

This is benign but could the mention "Islamic states" be replaced by "states in the Muslim world" (ie. "33 states in the Muslim world have recognized the symbol so far..."). An Islamic state is a distinct system of government like that of Iran for example; most Muslim-majority countries are not Islamic states so the terminology is slightly inaccurate... 183.89.32.32 (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Logistics in WW2?[edit]

Apparently millions of packages were transferred across axis/allies lines towards their respective PoWs, and messages even went back. This article [7] refers to daily (!) flights to neutral Lisbon where exchanges were made and the ICRC itself briefly describes the process [8], but I'm wondering if there are any more elaborate, possibly even first hand sources on the logistics? Handing significant amounts of material and communications (letters) between warring nations in one of the deadliest conflicts in history was probably complex and/or tricky, especially considering the front line was ever changing. -- MiG (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ [[9]]