Talk:International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articles International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Wikipedia CD Selection International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
Collaboration of the week International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on October 31, 2004.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

Contents

[edit] red cross vs. red crescent

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)

[edit] Date of meeting

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)

[edit] Red Cross or red cross?

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)

[edit] Title

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] Logo

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)

[edit] Intro

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)

[edit] Translation of the article from the German Wikipedia

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)

[edit] Someone's message

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)

[edit] Refactor

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)

[edit] Spaces

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

[edit] Article split, and symbols

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)

[edit] Red Cross article split, part two

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)

[edit] Partial revert

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)

[edit] Red crystal

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)

[edit] Who founded the party of five?

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)

[edit] Red Crystal

whoops, i should have RTFA first, ignore this

[edit] 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)

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

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)

[edit] question

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

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

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

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)

[edit] Israel admittance

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)

[edit] ICRC article created

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternational_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement_4538.html"