Talk:Fourth Geneva Convention

From edit summary: 24.210.106.247 (Talk) (Balanced final paragraph by adding the 2nd side of the argument. It is sad that of all the egregious and horrible violations over the last half century that only Israel is mentioned here. - MH)

. Mrdice (Talk) (rv, stop inserting your POV anonymous)

Doesn't look like POV to me, looks like fact.24.144.15.243 02:34, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The fact that you're describing the mention to Israel as sad gives the impression that you didn't make your edit because it would help the usefullness of the article, but because you don't like the mention of Israel-critical viewpoints. However, as this article is about the Fourth Geneva Convention, the fact that they exist (never mind if they're correct or not), and that they play a part in a major conflict, makes mentioning them legitimate. It think it would be more productive if you could find other cases of comparable accusasions against other countries, instead of turning this into another Israel/Palestinian revert war. Mrdice 03:03, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)

I didn't make the edit. I just commented on the edit that the other anon made. In the article it is mentioned that the Fourth Geneva Convention is used as the basis for accusing Israel. It seems to me that if this is mentioned one must put in both views of whether this accusation is true or false. You could easily put in information about how using it as the basis is correct instead of just deleting the information about how using it is false. The information that the anon put in the article is technically true....and you just deleted it rather than confront it logically with counter-arguments. By leaving out both the arguments about whether using it as the basis for accusing Israel is correct or incorrect you leave the default impression that it is correct. Which is what you want to do.24.144.15.243 03:11, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You have a point. It's because that user (which I mistakenly thought was you) was in the habit of adding shameless pov like "The irony, of course, is that such Palestinian Arab attacks directed against Israeli civilians are themselves amongst the most egregious of war crimes." that I reverted where I might have edited the language. You have to agree, phrases like "nobody has yet bothered to" are not npov. I've re-added the part about Israels viewpoint, so it now shows both sides. Mrdice 17:11, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)

As I see it, the entire paragraph is completely irrelevent. This is an article about the Fourth Geneva Convention, not who's violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel may or may not be the worst violator, but this is not the place to discuss that. Removing completely. --Admbws 05:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

The link to avaliable on WikiSource (http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention) is to Convention (III) (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm) not Convention (IV) (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm)

The sentence "Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime." is misleading without reference to Art.2 and Art.3 first paragraph or a description what a "protected person" is. But why emphasese that particular part of GCIV Part III. Art.33 to the detrement of the rest of the convention?

Between the first and last sentences the current article is IMHO too detailed on one specific issue. Would it not be better to give a brief description of each part of GCIV? Even just the part,section chapter and annex titles give a better understanding of GCIV than the present body of text:

• Part I. General Provisions
• Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War
• Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons
  • Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories
  • Section II. Aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict
  • Section III. Occupied territories
  • Section IV. Regulations for the treatment of internees
    • Chapter I. General provisions
    • <snip>
    • Chapter XIII. Release, Repatriation and Accommodation in Neutral Countries
  • Section V. Information Bureaux and Central Agency
• Part IV. Execution of the Convention
  • Section I. General Provisions
  • Section II. Final Provisions
• Annex I. Draft Agreement Relating to Hospital and Safety Zones and Localities
• Annex II. Draft Regulations concerning Collective Reliefraft
• Annex II. Draft Regulations concerning Collective Relief
• ANNEX III, I. Internment Card,II.Letter,III. Correspondence Card

Philip Baird Shearer 12:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that would definitely be better. --Zero 13:17, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

This article is in need of attention

Given that pir has put at the top of the page:

This article is in need of attention. Please improve it and then remove this

notice and the listing on pages needing attention. On the pages needing attention#Military, war, peace, international relations he has written:

although the most important information seems to be there, most of the article remains unwritten. This is an essential article for an encyclopaedia, and with Fallujah about to be flattened, many people might be looking for information on what the Geneva Conventions actually say about collective punishment and other war crimes. - pir 12:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The trouble is I am not sure what to put because it comes done to legal definitions and the article should not be about a specific war. For example Article 6 says In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

• Are the coalitioin forces still occupying the country or is it under local government? I don't know what the 'de jure position is.
• If they are occupying the country had the occupied territory been occupied for a year? What about those areas which are (to borrow a phrase from Northern Ireland and Operation Motorman "no go areas" for the US forces do they count as occupied?

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ahmmm... well, the most obvious thing about this article is that it mostly consists of headings with no written text below. Unfortunately I don't know anything about the Geneva Convention that's not in this article, so I can't help with the article. Also, I didn't want to imply that this article should directly deal with the razing of Fallujah, or give any answers to the question of whether it's a war crime or not, I just wanted to point out that this article is quite topical and important. So, basically, I just wanted to suggest that the article should generally be fleshed out a bit, if there's anybody who has the appropriate expert knowledge. - pir 20:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am removing the heading as I disagreed with it and no one else seems to agree with pir Philip Baird Shearer 02:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)