Talk:Fourth Geneva Convention

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that would definitely be better. --Zero 13:17, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestions for improved organization for the article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This article is in need of attention

message: I'm editing the comments on Article 32. The wording is not complicated, as previously stated; the definition of torture may be subject to debate, but the definition of corporal punishment is not. As the 32nd article specifically prohibits corporal punishments, there is no need for debate about what constitutes torture. Fortunately, the drafters of the convention foresaw the legal nitpicking that would inevitably follow, so they immediately followed their ban on torture with a ban on all manner of physical punishment. It's an often ignored phrase that clarifies their intent beyond discussion. Kafziel 16:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article 32

message: It seems that this page contains large amount of "headings" with no text underneath it.  IMHO, please set this page as stub/need attention so that "knowledgable" people can look/modify this page.  --Hurricane111 23:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Empty Headings?

message: Is it appropriate to note something as being disputed, and referencing the reader to the talk page? I thought the talk page wasn't supposed to be referenced in articles, except when there's a POV or someother sticker up top? I'm specifically talking about this: 
Art 3 covers internal armed conflict (not of an international character) (disputed — see talk page) and it provides similar protections to the population as those described in the rest of this document for a Protected person. That Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including POWs; shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.
Seems very innappropriate to me, so I'm gonna remove it, and if it is appropriate (somehow) you can replace it. --Phant 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innappropriateness 

message: The article treats the Convention with such abstractness that one simply can't tell how much or little of it is actually observed by its signatories, or even whether it's widely observed at all, or just a dead letter. In particular, why are there no examples of alleged violations or adjudications in recent years/decades (ever)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient history or current law? 

message: This section misrepresents what article 49 of GCIV says. Here's the text .
When talking about people who "must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased." it is specifically talking about persons who were evacuated due to the "Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand" . This is not a general right of return for displaced persons as this section tries to present it. Moreover, there's no secondary source supporting this section's interpretation of the text
Also, there is no source for the claim about what the ICRC says.
I shall be removing it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right of Return section 

message: I was sent a link to this page, which gives the Travaux préparatoires of the Geneva Conventions as published by the Swiss government.  It's very interesting to read through, and helps you understand what the convention was about better and what they were referring to.
Is this information already in the article?  If not, I highly recommend that we include it, as it's extremely important to anyone who wants to understand what the convention was referring to in each case, based on the discussions held and votes held at the time of its drafting.  The only thing, however, is that it's very tough to find this info discussed in a reliable reference (it's a few decades after it was created...)...
Thoughts? --Activism1234 00:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding the convention - important 

message: In the beginning of the article, the claim is made that the 4th Convention outlaws total war.  I added a "citation needed" and unless anyone is aware of any evidence for this claim (which is not expounded on anywhere in the article), I would propose we delete this claim.
Ezgranet (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Total War