Talk:Emblems of the Red Cross
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Merger of Red Crystal
- If this article is about the official emblems recognised in the Geneva Conventions (i.e. by the high contracting parties) and by the ICRC, the red crystal should be mentioned alongside the red cross, the red crescent and the red lion. The crystal is an official emblem just as the others are. If the article was about all the emblems ever in use by some part of the Movement, we would have to mention the red swastika and others as well. A better title for this article is "Official emblems of the Red Cross Movement".
- The Red Crystal should be merged with the article on the other emblems. That is where it belongs, now that the Third Protocol has been adopted. This is not about atheism, religion or whether it is new and shiny - just a grouping of information about officially recognised symbols that have the same or similar legal foundation, and are used by the same group of organisations.
A small aside on the "Red Lion and Sun": It is correct that it is not, currently, in use. In fact, it was only ever used in Iran, before the Islamic Revolution. After that, the Iranian authorities changed the emblem used to the Red Crescent, and the National Society followed suit. Just to make the point that at the end of the day, these embems belong to Governments - organisations such as the American Red Cross, the Sudanese Red Crescent and other National Societies are simply licensed (albeit, exclusively within their respective countries) to use them.
--Erkowit 06:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Red Crystal should not be placed under Red Cross. I, like many other secular people, am not a member of the Red Cross, and never have been. I am an Atheist and a proud member of Red Crystal. Putting this under Red Cross implies something highly inaccurate-- worse than lumping all Christianity and Islam under Judaism. The cross and the moon are not merely variants of Solomon's six-pointed star. The red crystal is not a derivative of the red cross. The appropriate proper course of action is a referencing link from the Red Cross symbol page, but the Red Crystal symbol has its own history and meaning.
- Leave it alone for a while, its new and shiny. In a few months time, a merge would probably be a good idea, but for now I think we should leave it at its own article space. Saberwyn - 19:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- But remove the Red Lion that someone has put alongside the cross, crescent and star. It has been abolished as a symbol and as a concept ages ago, and has nothing to do inside a brand new logo. Maja, Norway.
- Technically not, or so I am led to believe. It _is_ unlikely to be used, but it is still valid. Luis Dantas 10:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Abolished. Was the original lion symbol ever in use? If so, it should stay as a possibility. Saberwyn - 11:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- It was in use at least from 1929, up until 1980, albeit apparently only in Iran. For references, please see [1], Red Lion and Sun Society, and International Red Cross#Red_Lion_with_Sun:_currently_not_in_use. Luis Dantas 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
-
Keep the Lion, it's part of history, don't succumb to ignorant PC.[comment: agree, but even if one doesn't, abolishing the "Red Lion and Sun" would require agreement from Iran that they give up a right enshrined in international law (even if that right is not used for the time being), and gathering together 190-odd governments to agree to the proposition at a cost, probably of 2 -3 million USD...doesn't seem worth the bother]
- If you're going to keep the lion, you also need to add a red Swastika, as it was used by Germany during WW2 /sarcasm. Seriously though Keep - No Merge This is a fairly major development in the history of the Red Cross movement and deserves its own page.pm_shef 06:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the lion, merge red crystal, RENAME article to "Geneva Convention Humanitarian Protection Symbols" or something like that. The article is really just misnamed. It's not "emblems of the red cross". As pointed out below, it's "emblems of humanitarian aid recognized by the geneva convention" or whatever the correct wording actually is. Note: the enclosing within the red crystal should also be added, like it is in this article -Ashi
- Merging both Red Cross and Red Crystal into a "Geneva Convention (...) Symbol" with separate sections for each (with history and all) and an introductory text would seem OK to me. Both pages seem to concern the same subject. Just my two cent opinion. [user:mandragorae] 30 April 2006
- Keep for now - since this is a current event, I think we should let this sit for a while before changing stuff around too much. I agree with a previous poster that "Emblems of the Red Cross" is a misnomer, since (unless I'm misunderstanding things) the Red Crescent is an emblem of the Red Crescent, not of the Red Cross..? MMad 19:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The emblems
- This page displays the emblems recognised in humanitarian law (Geneva convention). The only recognised emblems are the red cross, red cresent, red lion with sun (not in use since 1980) and the (new) red crystal. The Red Star of David (Magen David Adom) is not recognised by the Geneva Convention and should not be listed under the official emblems. Israel is free to use this symbol within its own borders but it has no international status. The descriptions are clear in this matter, but listing the Red Star of David in line with the four official symbols makes it look like it has a official status in international humantarian law. I find this to be confusing on first sight. (The Red Cross - page describes this symbol under the heading "Other symbols used by specific national societies" and not under the heading "Symbols recognized by the Geneva Conventions" which links to this page for details).[User:WoutR] 11 January 2006
[edit] abuse?
Would like to see more in the article about documented abuses of the Red Cross/Crescent/Crystal symbol.
[edit] no respect
- In modern war, the red cross is just a nice colorful target.
[edit] deception
- Israeli's don't trust ambulances with the Red Cross/Crescent because terrorists have been known to use them for transport on occasion.
- I've also heard some things about Red Cross transport being abused in WWII, but the theories I heard seemed a bit outlandish.
[edit] Swastika
Having read this page it sounds like in theory national organisations should be allowed to use their own symbol if they can develop significant recognition. It would be interesting to see whether India or Sri Lanka (or anyone else) is allowed to use a Red Swastika if they ever try again... Nil Einne 22:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually Red Swastika was used also in China (swastika is apparently also the old taoist symbol).
