Wikipedia

Talk:Attacks on humanitarian workers

Latest comment: 6 months ago by Gene.redinger in topic Workers killed in Guinea capital?
Learn more about this page


More

edit

There are plenty more, it would be good to make this a relatively comprehensive list, with links to the more notorious ones like the Canal Hotel Bombing and the Atambua killings.2toise 05:08, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Article not complete

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recent Israeli and Afghanistan wars are not covered, as well as the Korea situation (food aid blocked from US, Canada, UK for conditional reasons etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenga3 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kidnapped Korean Missionaries

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Of course it does not justify the kidnapping to identify the Koreans as missionaries.(See [1] However it is very tricky to identify them as humanitarian workers who usually deliver humanitarian aid according to humanitarian principles which prohibit proselytizing (and usually spend more than ten days in the field). It is hard enough to convince suspicious governments that the sole purpose of humanitarian aid is to help the victims survive and blurring the lines between missionaries and humanitarians does not help.--Joel Mc 10:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Who Gets Included

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As with any list, the question is, who gets included? An fair rule would be, "the victims of the attack must be operating under a Code of Conduct advocating neutrality, impartiality, and independence". That is one razor shart distinction between government workers, for-profit employees, and aid workers.

By that rule, the "2007 Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76 crash" link should be removed. The airplane was a commercial operation, in the process of carrying humanitarian aid, probably on a for-profit basis (as is almost always the rule for humanitarian cargo operations). The airplane technicians killed in the crash were clearly not humanitarians: they were in Mogadishu to repair one of the other airplanes in the company's fleet.

I don't mean be too inflammatory, but by my proposed filter, and USAID employees should not be counted as they are not independent humanitarian aid workers. Sometimes, as in Iraq, they are parties to the conflict, and end up making targets of themselves that way. Jra (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's actually incorrect. USAID funded projects are not considered "parties to the conflict" unless they employ undercover U.S. intelligence or military intelligence operatives, which is another kettle of fish; i.e. for USAID to be considered a "party to the conflict", USAID would a priori be required to have a military mandate, which de jura it does not. De facto, USAID funds may sometimes be misused for such purposes; BUT that can happen with any form of humanitarian funding; i.e. a 'slippery slope'. If it's fine to (kill, shoot, imprison) one aid worker on supposition of conflict-relation, then it's fine to do it to them all. At which point humanitarian worker protections are destroyed. 83.77.7.7 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

A long series of edits

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I have added a totally-disputed flag. Some of this stuff may be true. Some I can't even guess because it seems to be wp:patent nonsense or possibly rhetoric rendered into English. Some of it is clearly true. I'll add giving the article a deeper look to my wish list, and I defer to editors who know more and have immediate interest to remove the flag whenever (even now, possibly) it isn't needed. Cheers! :) sinneed (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Uh - undisputed (like totally, man). Suggest you give Mike Godwin a shout. He knows what this is about. It's hardly nonsense. Au contraire. Or rather, it IS complete nonsense, but it's "nonsense that happened", costing the U.S. government over eight million dollars. 83.77.7.7 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Of course, Godwin is prone to delete the whole thing, but at least he'll do it with a view towards censorship. Oh, yes, didn't Mike Godwin invent the term: Pierre Salinger syndrome?. Have him put that in the edit box (snort). That would be poetic, given the source of the problem. 83.77.7.7 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
The section is entirely unsourced, the tone and content are wildly non-NPOV and there's no assertion that anyone referred to in the section is a humanitarian worker. To boot, the section is also largely the work of a blocked sockpuppeteer, so out it comes. --Rrburke(talk) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Who called me a blocked sockpuppeteer? Mike Godwin? Jimbo? Slimvirgin's sockpuppet-who-attacked-me? David Gerard's sockpuppet Fredrickday? (banned for sockpuppeting) Durova's sockpuppet who attacked me? Do tell. Ah - "some sockpuppets are better than others". Actually, my so-called "sockpuppeting" was attempts to argue when I was being accused of libelous nonsense by people who have wound-up being in the U.S. military and intel. This isn't crap, folks - I'm applying for political asylum. Call it NPOV, scream COI (quick, call [| Gwernol](1)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BookSmart 2])! No! Call [User:Jehochman JonathanHochman]!) Censor it as you will, but the asylum applications are in. Done is done. You can influence a horse to water but you can't make him.... (oh, never mind). i.e. When a Wikipedia attack winds up being a full blown U.S. intelligence case, requiring a U.S. Citizen to apply for political protection and asylum something is very wrong here, folks. I rest my case
On a more minor note: I was attacked on WP when I didn't know the rules of sockpuppeting - by Gerard's, Slim's and Durova's sockpuppets. I've not touched this bleeding encyclopedia since I was attacked. Having said that I thought it would be nice to let "the home-team" to know what this came down to: Application for political asylum by an innocent U.S. Citizen. Way-to-go, guys. Oh, wait - I'm a sockpuppeteer. Surely that deserved official attack (snort). My so-called "sockpuppeting" was related to responding to being blocked for false accusations such as that I was an "Iraq war protestor" (snort), among other patent libelous nonsense.
Just send Slimvirgin and all her many clever identities my congratulations on Doha. The World Bank just re-apprised economic growth from 'growth' to retraction. Maybe Slim wants to crack a book on economics, before she attacks economists, causing gross political and economic damage, all serving to embarrass the United States Government. I have a pet theory that she's working in the interest of Canada, and this was all her grand masterplan. Because even she can't possibly be this stupid. Or... wait - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.14.42 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Philosophy: Is it vandalism when you write the truth about what Wikipedia led into... on Wikipedia? Evidently. 83.76.14.42 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Taxonomy: Is it whistleblowing, if you never worked for the people who attacked you. It's reporting crime. Who cares if they are the people who were supposed to investigate crime; crime is crime. There's no subjectivity in such things. Or (if you will) COI. 83.76.14.42 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Shakespeare: If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? 83.76.14.42 (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Semi protected

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article has been semiprotected for 1 week. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) File:Http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj410/neveragain2b/Thankyou.jpgReply

Who gets included II

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Inclusion of an incident in this article carries an assertion that the incident constituted an attack on humanitarian workers. This assertion needs to be verified or it is WP:OR. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes it does. Therefore you should not remove an inclusion when it is sourced and verified. --386-DX (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree, with the caveat that appending a source to a statement does not automatically mean the source supports the assertions in the statement. In your case, I read through the three sources, and they didn't. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Many sources attest to the ships bringing humanitarian aid, the people bringing humanitarian aid are classed as what? The Free Gaza movement is a human rights movement, so that can also be classed as humanitarian. ValenShephard 12:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
Were they Non-combatants? Chesdovi (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Even if the content of the ships were widely regarded as humanitarian aid, which I don't believe it is, that wouldn't automatically make the passengers of the ship humanitarian workers. And it certainly wouldn't establish that the Israeli operation was an "attack on" the passengers. If you are intent on adding this incident to the article - which you clearly are - you need sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The people on board were members of either the Free Gaza movement and/or the IHH (NGO) which is a registered humanitarian organisation, with a special status granted to it by the UN, which speaks of its authority. I dont think its religious links are important in this issue. ValenShephard 16:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

So, for the fourth time, you need sources, to verify both your current assertion that the IHH is a humanitarian organization (Free Gaza is irrelevant here because its activists were not involved in the violence), and the implied assertion that Israeli action on the ship constituted an "attack on" the workers. Considering that on both counts there is video evidence to the contrary, this could be difficult. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here you go then:

Here is one source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7790919/Gaza-flotilla-the-Free-Gaza-Movement-and-the-IHH.html

Though Israel accuses it of being sympathetic to Hamas and such, the source says:

'Israel does not dispute that the foundation, known by the intials of its name, IHH, provides relief compatible with its official status [humanitarian NGO], including supplying food and medicines to orphans and conflict zones, and investing in education.'

Here is where the UN affords the IHH its 'special consultative status' which means they respect its statuts, on Page 30, they are listed in English as 'Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief': http://esango.un.org/paperless/content/E2009INF4.pdf

Here is the UNHCR listing the IHH as 'Humanitarian Relief Foundation' and listing their history and activities saying:

'The IHH primarily delivers foodstuff, clothes and tents to crisis regions hit by wars, conflicts, and natural disaster to meet urgent needs of victims. The foundation further provides health services in drought and aridity-stricken regions where poverty and deprivation have become chronic, and carries out long-term projects that aim at enabling local peoples stand on their own feet. In this regard, vocational training programs are organized for families; orphanages are provided with necessary services; health services such as maternal wards and mobile clinics as well as educational services such as setting up research and computer centres are provided.' [1]

The IHH themselves say their goal is:

'Wherever he or she is, distressed, victimized by war, disaster, etc, wounded, disabled, homeless and subjected to famine, oppressed, it is the IHH’s main objective to deliver humanitarian aid to all people and take necessary steps to prevent any violations against their basic rights and liberties.' [2]

I agree that calling the raid an attack is too strong, so I suggest changing the name of the article to 'Incidents involving Humanitarian Aid' or 'Humanitarian Missions' so then you cant have any issue with the flotilla members designation. The fact is the UN and its sister agency the UNHCR agree with the IHH's official purpose which it claims is humanitarian, and even afford it special cosultative rights which means they respect its purpose or views. ValenShephard 12:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

  1. ^ http://www.unhcr.org/48fdec2c20.html
  2. ^ http://www.ihh.org.tr/hakkimizda/en
The Telegraph article explicitly states that the IHH is not a humanitarian organization. The article could not be clearer on this point. One of the main groups involved in the flotilla that was raided by Israeli commandos on Monday was the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief, which is a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency. None of your quotes indicate that anyone except the IHH itself see the IHH as a humanitarian organization. The fact that the UN grants the group official recognition does not mean that it endorses the group's self-description. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
That statement by the telegraph is the opinion of the telegraph only. Israel in the article doesnt dispute that what the IHH does is humanitatarian in nature. Secondly the UN recognises what the IHH does as humanitarian. Why else would it list it under the NGOs it recognises, supports and respects? The quotes I gave from the UN sister agency clearly shows that they agree with the purposes and aims of the IHH. You show no sign of wanting to compromise and didnt take the offer to change the name of the article or to balance the statements. ValenShephard 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Attacks on humanitarian workers. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Shorten and update

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I would shorten it and add some graphs showing trends. Zezen (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

This graph is very useful and informative:

https://aidworkersecurity.org/incidents/report/tactictrends Zezen (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Request for Spinout Article

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've drafted and am requesting another article Draft:Aid_Worker_Security_Database one reviewer, User:Robert_McClenon, rejected due to its relation to this article. The article I hope to post is not a spin out of this article for a number of reasons. In the present era of open data and the importance of data analysis, the database itself is a separate entity apart from the types of incidents it collects. Although the AWSD (Aid worker security database) monitors attacks on humanitarian workers, this data is used to produced a number of resources such as gender analysis in humanitarian work, over all numbers of aid workers globally, and nationalities of those present. According to recent publications, some of the AWSD data was used to frame a separate report on aid coverage in NE Nigeria. By requesting these two articles be one, it grossly downplays the contributions of the Aid worker security database, used by the UN for a decade, and reduces it to a simple footnote on the page for explaining the physical act of attacking a humanitarian worker. In addition to reducing contributions, combining these articles also downplays the vast uses for large datasets even beyond the sectors originally intended for. Using this logic, all wiki database pages should be a part of the wiki topics they keep track of, the database ACLED wiki page should not be separate from pages like Civilian casualties and the many pages that reference rules of IHL (International Humanitarian Law). I would appreciate any discussion on how Draft:Aid_Worker_Security_Database can be published as its own stand alone article. Thank you. Also to help this article, Attacks on humanitarian workers, one section should link to the wiki pages for Insecurity Insight and ACLED, and hopefully the Aid Worker Security Database when it is accepted, as all three monitor attacks in different ways and use the data differently. HumOutcomes (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by HumOutcomes (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@HumOutcomes and Robert McClenon: I was also hit by User:Robert_McClenon with a WP:SPINOUT rejection recently. Different reasons, but same hit. Found this due to the Teahouse, and AfC:Talk pages. Seems to be a regular occurrence, irrespective of topical context (possible over-use or broad-scope blanket). PhanChavez (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Linking Database pages and using codebooks

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've noticed in lots of the sections on the talk page discussing new edits, they could be assisted if this page linked Insecurity Insight and ACLED, and the Draft:Aid Worker Security Database wiki page when it is accepted, as all three monitor attacks in different ways and use the data differently. All three databases have codebooks available for the public to read on their websites which will help explain who is usually counted, types of workers etc. HumOutcomes (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC) HumOutcomes HumOutcomes (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@HumOutcomes: Added section: Attacks_on_humanitarian_workers#Organizations, listed Aid Worker Security Database (by alpha).

Workers killed in Guinea capital?

edit
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hundreds were killed, but not humanitarian workers; https://www.unhcr.org/us/news/news-releases/unhcr-office-destroyed-guinea-fighting

Regarding claim; "Guinea – December 7 – Hundreds of people were killed after rebels destroyed a UNHCR centre." Gene.redinger (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attacks_on_humanitarian_workers&oldid=1217295585"