Talk:Kunduz hospital airstrike/Archive 1

Expand
As soon as I have some free time I will contribute, but this is such a big story I can't help but wonder why the article is so small. It desperately needs an expansion, some images (+map), templates and boxes for the afghan war and etc. Skycycle (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added some topic headings and reordered a bit, and divided up some long paragraphs. Jus  da  fax   12:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is something WikiNews should have covered. They had nothing yesterday evening!Fconaway (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Have added location map for Kunduz Province. Jus  da  fax   23:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * One thing that stuck out to me is that the United Nations described the bombing as a war crime. Would it be redundant to include that statement, considering Médecins Sans Frontières' described it as one? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 07:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It would improve the article, in my view, but the sourcing must be precise. Jus  da  fax   08:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC) UPDATE: Looks like the UN is holding off on an investigation for now. The link is about six hours old as of this post.  Jus  da  fax   09:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Bombs
I consulted the Lockheed AC-130 article and then the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb bcz nothing about the article was convincing against the possibility that someone concluded, because "bombardment" occurred, that bombs were dropped. Now my question is: does the 130 dispense those GBU-39s from the BRU-61/A racks (BRU-61/A bomb racks?) that the GBU-39 article says "most US Air Force aircraft will be able to carry", and does that mean the 1 or more choppers in the attack might plausibly (each) have carried a 2000-lb.-er, instead of 4 250-lb.-ers, on the one (or several?) racks that they each mount? Surely informed minds will want to know. --Jerzy•t 08:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something, that's all WP:OR until somebody starts publishing official reports. There were no reporters on the ground, MSF can't know the technical specs of whatever hit their building, and the U.S. isn't releasing any more information for the moment. FourViolas (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the Washington Post, Campbell reports it was an AC-130, but he doesn't say that in the video. I can't find the full press conference anywhere. I doubt very much an AC-130 dropped bombs, even SDBs.  I'd think the AC-130 used cannon fire, which does explode, not that the people on the receiving end can tell the difference. 4.30.230.198 (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
At the time of the creation of this article, and the addition of NPOV flag, there is no evidence that the hospital was hit by an airstrike or that the United States (or Afghan of Taliban forces) was involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.13.107 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 5 October 2015
 * General John F. Campbell has acknowledged to a Senate committee that the hospital was bombed, at the behest of Afghan forces, despite "rigorous" U.S. military procedures designed to avoid such mistakes, so there's no longer any room for doubt.Fconaway (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of coverage
I think this criticism of CNN and NYT's coverage from Sam Harris Glenn Greenwald is sufficiently noteworthy for mention in the responses section. Rhoark (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The byline cites Glenn Greenwald for that and this. I think neither of those is admissible for now per WP:UNDUE, because Greenwald is clearly much more openly anti-U.S. than the NYT et al. are pro-U.S., and because The Intercept doesn't have nearly as many copyeditors or as solid a reputation. FourViolas (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of Greenwald determines whether he is a reliable source? That is laughable.  How about his past history of being reliable or unreliable determining whether he is WP:UNDUE rather than the opinion of one editor?  Maybe one should just consider that he has a Pulitzer Prize and let his record and awards speak for themself.
 * "He was the debut winner, along with Amy Goodman, of the Park Center I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism in 2008, and also received the 2010 Online Journalism Award for his investigative work on the abusive detention conditions of Chelsea Manning. For his 2013 NSA reporting, he received the George Polk award for National Security Reporting; the Gannett Foundation award for investigative journalism and the Gannett Foundation watchdog journalism award; the Esso Premio for Excellence in Investigative Reporting in Brazil (he was the first non-Brazilian to win), and the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Pioneer Award. Along with Laura Poitras, Foreign Policy magazine named him one of the top 100 Global Thinkers for 2013. The NSA reporting he led for The Guardian was awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for public service" Lipsquid (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yikes, I had something else by Harris open at the same time I think. Glenn Greenwald is indeed the author. In my opinion, this is due, but I'm just leaving it here for consideration. Rhoark (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the Times has over a hundred Pulitzers. My point is that everything else in the article is reporting facts and reporting the positions of the parties directly involved (MSF, US govt., Afghan govt.). Greenwald is reporting his own position on the way the American media has been covering this. In my opinion, it's undue to include his editorializing but not anyone else's (and there's certainly a lot out there:   . Also, I doubt that his "condemnation" (essentially a criticism of NYT/CNN editorial policy) is of lasting significance to this event.


 * I think we, the editors of this encyclopedia article, should be aware of Greenwald's comments on media coverage, as well as comments from other experts (cf. this BBC overview from today), but I don't think it's due or relevant to quote from Greenwald, an unrelated primary source, in the article as it stands. FourViolas (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Then add more criticisms rather than attack the only one of the page. You certainly have many sources.  And, there is little doubt that Greenwald's criticism was correct at this point as the U.S. has changed their story 3 times now. Lipsquid (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's the other part of my concern: even leaving aside NPOV concerns, I don't think any of the editorials in question have any lasting significance to the article (see WP:NOTNEWS). In a year, or even a month, readers will not be interested in whether a respected journalist thought CNN chose the wrong headline, or in the NY Daily News' editorial on the subject. I think we should WP:Let the dust settle on editorializing and speculation in general except when solidly supported by multiple respected sources. FourViolas (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@FourViolas "overcharged language"? You need to get out of the CNN-NYT-propaganda bubble:


 * http://www.thenation.com/article/look-for-hospitals-as-targets/ → "historical record suggests that the US bombing of an Afghan hospital may not have been an accident"


 * https://theintercept.com/2015/10/07/a-short-history-of-u-s-bombing-of-civilian-facilities/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.223.20.123 (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * http://fair.org/home/media-are-blamed-as-us-bombing-of-afghan-hospital-is-covered-up → "Ambiguous, misleading and even downright dishonest language abounds throughout the coverage."


 * http://www.thenation.com/article/the-us-massacre-in-kunduz-exposes-the-bankruptcy-of-obamas-national-security-policy → "The US Massacre in Kunduz"


 * http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/10/us-lies-and-excuses-for-bombing-hospital/#more-60054 → "Lies and Excuses"


 * http://fair.org/home/nyt-continues-to-obscure-responsibility-in-uss-bombing-of-hospital → "an artful use of the passive voice to preserve the fiction that the identity of the hospital’s assailants is uncertain" --79.223.20.123 (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Glenn Greenwald is one of America's most famous journalists, and his commentary on The New York Times' coverage makes the issue notable. Has the NYT issued a reply? Is there any doubt about the veracity of Greenwald's account (that can be easily corroborated by the links he provides)? Arguments that The New York Times is a major paper and has won awards are irrelevant. -Darouet (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not that I believe a certain story about the incident; it's simply that http://www.dissidentvoice.org is not as respected, or as fact-checked, as the BBC or NYT. WP:N is the policy on when a topic deserves its own article, not what information is appropriate to include within a given article. WP:NOTNEWS is more appropriate here: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Not every opinion piece written by a respected journalist needs to be quoted on Wikipedia, and Greenwald's critcism of the NYT's headline choice is not of lasting importance to the topic.FourViolas (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, where are you getting the dissident voice.org link from? Right now our article cites The Intercept, where Greenwald publishes most of his pieces. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 79.223.20.123 brought it up in the comment above mine. FourViolas (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[The bombing of the hospital was deliberate intention]. An intent [US Massacre] destroyed the hospital from an international, independent, medical humanitarian organisation: Watch the Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da1drhp09t0 !!! In Kunduz a fundamental problem of the ″Afghanistan military operation″ is visible: local government officials often do not know their own and the international law or they simply ignore it. In this respect, the deads in the Kundus clinic are the result of the strategy "fight the Taliban without complying with the rule of law". The other result is that MSF was forced to abandon its work in Kunduz. Is Der Spiegel "respected" enough for your liking? Step out of your bubble. --84.170.89.231 (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Der Spiegel is a great source, and may avoid some of CNN's mistakes; that's why I noted above that mainstream American media shouldn't be taken as the only legitimate perspective. However, the Spiegel in this case isn't going any further than the BBC or NYT: Obama apologized and announced an investigation, Campbell said the following things at the Senate hearing, MSF says the bombing was targeted and deliberate (and we don't quote anyone who disagrees). That's what we should aim for too: report what officials and spokespeople say, attribute controversial statements to their staters (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), and let the facts speak for themselves. At this point, there's so little information available (essentially, MSF's statements, Campbell's, Sediqi's, and Earnest's), all major outlets will be reporting the same things, and when they disagree we should err on the side of caution. FourViolas (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * IP, I agree that Greenwald's analysis of NYT and CNN coverage is relevant to this article, but your comments fail to answer FourViolas' specific and legitimate editorial concerns. Let's stick to specific policy guidelines, as FourViolas has done, and links to references that concern whether Greenwald's piece should be here or not. -Darouet (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * When respectable sources disagree, we should present the spectrum of views impartially. Rhoark (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And there are a number of sources that picked up Greenwald's commentary, and an Atlantic article that criticized the NYT along similar lines for their reporting on this event. The significance, FourViolas, is that problematic reporting by established papers regarding American military activity, for various reasons, is highlighted by this particular airstrike - hence the media attention. -Darouet (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This? I agree that that lends support to the idea that Greenwald's comments are worth reporting, although there's still a disconnect in long-term importance between "MSF was bombed, and called for a war crime investigation" and "Greenwald and Friedersdorf thought the Times' coverage was too careful not to offend the Army". The Nation/Intercept/fair.org/dissidentvoice.org coverage shows that there's a significant, probably significant-enough-to-include, set of commentators who are taking this as an argument against U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan; I'd personally prefer to wait for a qualified secondary source to survey and summarize those reactions, rather than citing the pundits directly. FourViolas (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If this section is kept, it should be given a different title. It's only one person's opinion of two media organisations' coverage of the attack, so the current title is much too broad. 82.100.205.194 (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post details
This detailed account from the Washington Post (last Saturday) has lots of great factual information on the incident and background, including some privileged sources which might not be found elsewhere. We should use it to expand the "incident" account. FourViolas (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, we now even know it was the 4th Special Operations Squadron. First they completely destroy a known hospital filled with civilians including children:
 * - Warning: Some readers may find the following images disturbing
 * Then they try to justify it, next they are destroying potential evidence :
 * 
 * 
 * It's getting even more disgusting! --79.223.29.155 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

USAF
The infobox currently states the "assailant" as United States Air Force. I know it's confirmed that the U.S. was responsible, but I haven't seen USAF specifically mentioned. I'm not familiar with U.S. logistics in Afghanistan. Is it correct that Lockheed_AC-130 implies the plane in question must have been USAF and not, say, Navy? FourViolas (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a fair question. Obviously U.S. armed forces are responsible, but I don't know what branch. -Darouet (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Lockheed_AC-130 is properly cited it seems. And we should stick with what the sources say, whether they are correct or not. -- Chamith   (talk)  22:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't be sure whether those sources establish that the USAF is the only group that flies them, or if they merely show that they do use them. I'll check in with WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force. FourViolas (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * TomStar81 says that only the USAF operates AC-130s, and that this is close enough to common knowledge that it isn't WP:SYNTH to conclude that the Air Force was the proximately responsible party. FourViolas (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that as AC-130s generally don't carry bombs, the repeated references to this being a "bombing" in the article are almost certainly incorrect. These aircraft are typically armed with cannons. The Washington Post story used as a reference in the article explains this, and notes that the way the aircraft operates means that the attack would have been directed by personnel on the ground and guided using a range of sensors on the aircraft. 82.100.205.194 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here you have the bombing: A footage showing the firepower this aircraft has Are you really worring about the correct US-military-speak? HE. High Explosives. HEI. High Explosive Incendiary. Firebombing. Incendiary grenade. Incendiary device → Brandbombe. Bombing is very much correct! --79.223.29.155 (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Are the authors of this article clear about how serious this incident is?
It is possible to speculate endlessly about this attack but some facts are known.

- The hospital was attacked by an AC-130 gunship of the US AIR Force. The AC-130 is known for pinpoint accuracy when attacking a target. The AC-130 uses GPS and other navigation aids for accuracy. It is nearly unimaginable that the hospital was targeted by mistake, that means in confusion with another target. - The attack destroyed the main building of the MSF hospital or trauma center in Kunduz. - There were several attacks one after the other, taking out the main building only, without much collateral damage to the surrounding buildings. - The hospital was one of the few or only building that was lightened up, running its own electrical generator. - According to MSF the roof of the building was marked by their flag, including a red cross.

The questions:

- Why did the Captain of the AC-130 did accept to attack the hospital? It should have been marked with its GPS coordinates as a protected target on some list available to him/her and it was marked on the roof with the MSF flag. - Why was the hospital targeted by the USA air force. Again it should have been on lists as protected. Why did the USA forces on the ground ask to attack this hospital, again it should have been on a list as protected. I do not speculate about the Afghan side, as I am not sure they know something about the Geneva convention. - Who in the line of command gave the permission for this attack? - Why did the AC-130 keep attacking after several places, like the USA embassy in Kabul, a contact in the Pentagon and so on were informed that the hospital was under attack? Does nobody of them have a direct line to the USA air force command in Afghanistan? In this case several entities should have to answer why this information did not manage to get all the way, or if it was purposely ignored.

Somehow I am missing a sense about how serious this attack was and its consequences. The point is not that civilians died in this attack. An deliberate attack on a working hospital is a war crime. Hospitals whoever are running them in a war zone are directly protected by the Geneva convention. Who will go to work in a hospital in a war zone if this protection is conveniently ignored? How ever can hospital staff again trust to their protected status if even the USA will attack a hospital? This hospital was in operation there for 4 years. Its position, exact GPS coordinates, was know to every party in this war. In no way has the USA voiced any disagreement to any MSF representative about the operation of this hospital and any plan of attack or dissolution of the protected status should have meant a warning to the hospital and its staff, before any attack on said hospital should have commenced.

The point is, a hospital was attacked by the USA Air Force, it has to be made clear how and why, the time interval for promised answers by the USA military has passed by, I think on Thursday last week. To what standard of conduct in war does the USA hold itself to?

I am putting this points for discussion here, as I think it is important to have a whole idea about such an article here in the Wikipedia as a neutral non US American view. Everything above one can find in numerous articles around the world. I find a deafening silence in the USA press about asking their authorities some serious questions.Jochum (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you can find reliable sourcing for your questions we certainly can put it in the article. I have been watching but so far I have found nothing.  Please present your "numerous articles" from around the world and we can add it to the article.  I redid the info you added so that it was directly related to the incident and sourced. Gandydancer (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Facility evacuation and shutdown
Again pussyfooting around the facts. The USA military has already agreed to having smashed the gate to gain entrance. They have already agreed to not having informed MSF about their visit and they have already agreed that they should have informed MSF beforehand and they have said sorry and are prepared to pay for the gate. Sorry of course after the fact. And that has nothing to do with facility shutdown and evacuation, but rather with the Investigations.Jochum (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I really do not understand why you are addressing this to the editors here. We can only add what we find on the web.  Again, please provide RS. Gandydancer (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You can refer to information right here on Wikipedia. How the protected status of a hospital works, is already here and well referenced. Treating wounded enemy combatants is even more protected than civilians and a mandate. The beginning of the Geneva conventions is about treatment of soldiers, civilians were an afterthought. No need to scure the internet for journalistic guessing games, every information already here a link away.Jochum (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is, provide links to reliable sources such as mainstream media outlets (from any country, taking regional bias into account) which properly verify the facts and analysis in question, maintaining a point of view which reflects the consensus of such sources. FourViolas (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Gandydancer and FourViolas, I linked the information to the corresponding article in Wikipedia. Information already available in Wikipedia, already vetted in that article is surly not below the guesses and half information out there on the internet. The Information and the link to the next Wikipedia article are highly relevant So I would like you to discuss those things here before starting an edit war. In this article are missing ground laying information regarding the status of a hospital in war, military civilian or run by an international organisation. On the civilian side, fourth Geneva convention, there is this wiggle room about proportionality, necessity and so on. In regards to a hospital treating wounded soldiers, first Geneva convention, there is no wiggle room, protected, even if overrun by the Taliban or if the Taliban would have overtaken this hospital. And if you need a source start with the linked articles in the Wikipedia.Jochum (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

regarding International humanitarian law
The protection of hospitals is according to the Geneva convention. The agreement from 1949 was also signed and ratified by the USA. According to that agreement hospitals are protected. The exception is: unless the facilities "are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy" as rightly commented in the article. But: Even if enemy combatants are inappropriately using the facility for shelter, the "rule of proportionality" usually forbids such attacks because of the high potential for civilian casualties. (why the usually as a qualifier?) And it is not the: Human rights organization Human Rights Watch stated that the laws of war require the attacking force to issue a warning, and wait a reasonable time for a response, before attacking a medical unit being misused by combatants. but the Geneva convention itself that requires a warning by the attacking force. And that is not a choice. Why having qualifiers, as if the Geneva convention is not clear on the point of the protection of a hospital. And this scenario, an unannounced air strike by an AC-130 definitely falls outside a hypothetical proportional attack. Why being so ambiguous about it, the Geneva conventions forbids the attack on a hospital, except in exceptional circumstances!Jochum (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because we edit articles to reflect what the sources say. In this case, the BBC source provided says, "Even if combatants, such as the Taliban, take refuge in (hospitals), they should not be attacked. Under rules established by the ICC, any such incident would probably result in too high a number of civilian casualties - what is called the rule of proportionality." We paraphrase the "probably" as "usually" - pretty straightforward. VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The information about international humanitarian law are right here in the Wikipedia, under IHL, under the Geneva conventions. It is very clear there, that from the very beginning the wounded soldier on any side and the hospital treating him are protected. No wiggle room there. Treating the enemy combatant seems to afford even more protection than treating civilians. We have the information right here in the Wikipedia and collecting wrong information from journalist running against information already available here seems to me counter productive.Jochum (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't use Wikipedia as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. Legal documents such as the Geneva Conventions are primary sources and should be used cautiously. Wikipedia is primarily based on secondary sources, such as a journalist's or analyst's commentary on the legality of the attacks. VQuakr (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Quotes

 * "Early Saturday morning, a Doctors Without Borders trauma hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan—the only functioning medical center in that part of the country—was unexpectedly hit by a U.S. airstrike. At least 12 staff members and seven patients were killed, and 37 people were injured. A NATO coalition spokesman said the U.S.-led forces intended the strike as a response against a perceived Taliban threat nearby." The Atlantic
 * "At least 12 staff members and seven patients — including three children — were killed when the hospital, run by Doctors Without Borders, was badly damaged in the airstrike early Saturday in Kunduz....The United States military, in a statement, confirmed an airstrike at 2:15 a.m., saying that it had been targeting individuals “who were threatening the force” and that “there may have been collateral damage to a nearby medical facility.” NYT
 * "Aerial bombardments blew apart a Doctors Without Borders hospital in the battleground Afghan city of Kunduz about the time of a U.S. airstrike early Saturday, killing at least 19 people, officials said." CNN FourViolas (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (While 4V was not unreasonable in hoping that one sig would be enuf in the situation they created, they were overly optimistic, whence i (& maybe others) have committed too much keying, and even likelier, too much reading, to the appearance that their bullet points above give to others, of being the whole of one unsigned contribution, and of deserving and being followed by, several separate, signed, talk contributions (the first by a new participant signing at 04:34 as "FourViolas") about how to proceed toward better reliability than the (apparently) anon contib'r had offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(Who's reliable?)
Reliability note: these are all mainstream American media outlets, and as such tend to err on the side of the State Department line when it comes to foreign affairs. Three sources of this caliber are more than enough to establish "hit by an airstrike" per WP:Verifiability. I will add "when United States forces apparently bombed" to the lead to better reflect the interim uncertainty of the situation: no reporters can confirm on the ground, and military officials are trying to avoid the details. FourViolas (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * MSF/Docors Without Borders have issued press releases including eyewitness reports of what has happened. They were bombed persistently and intentionally.Fconaway (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm giving this topic my attention for now solely in the area of the disorganization and other confusion on this talk page -- tho i don't doubt that the article has been or will be protected to ensure the misunderstandings of WP policy and procedure reflected here don't produce an article we must be ashamed of. The methodology 4V suggests here has nothing to do WP:RS, and FC's apparent certainty that no one but MSF's flacks need to be heard is... well ... mistaken.  Don't anyone imagine they have something to contribute to the accompanying article, if they are sure they understand WP:Policy without having given it serious attention. --Jerzy•t 11:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly we can hardly take MSF to be either independent or secondary; ideally all their statements should be sourced to reliable media reports which put them in context. WP:IRS states that whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I did not intend to impute bias to these sources, merely point out that they are highly unlikely to publish information as fact while it remains substantively contested by the U.S. government specifically, and that the quotes above were sufficient to conclude that the hospital had indeed been bombed. WP:RSN discussions, such as this one, show that major Western news outlets such as those cited in the article (BBC, CNN, etc.) may be considered less than perfectly reliable in cases where the official national (here, U.S.) perspective is rejected by other countries; I'm not saying that happened here, but it is indeed germane to RS discussion. FourViolas (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder why Jerzy uses the word 'flacks' for the MSF press officials. And why reports by MSF would be regarded as less independent than articles by NY Times or CNN. After all, MSF is a highly respected organization with the goal to care for people irrespective of their political affiliation, while American news outlets are often not more than outlets for Pentagon press releases. Does the fact that an employee of an American news outlet handles the keyboard decide about the reliability of information? Bever (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonder no more: A flack, as i understand the term, is a public relations specialist. Neither hiring them (including assigning those who've shown talent within the organization) nor relying on them implies unreliability (nor, for that matter, immorality), but to a degree depending on the individual and the organization, they should be presumed to inevitably at the least dispense more readily information favorable to the org's interests than embarrassing to the org. (And IMO the slightly seedy term "flack" serves well the purpose of keeping near the forefront an awareness that all orgs practice PR, and that PR inherently never perfectly aligns itself with the cause of truth.)  I've no particular respect for CNN, but (like the Washington Post via the Watergate scandal) NYT has established its reputation for decades, of an internal culture centered on integrity, esp. via its coverage of both the My Lai massacre (and associated coverup) and the Pentagon Papers, which reputation creates a presumption of standing up for the public interest when the USG is insisting on the uniqueness of its own insight as to what the public interest requires.   MSF is another remarkable institution. It's especially full of dedicated humanitarian idealists whose feet few are worthy to kiss. (I've met an instance of the species: an American civilian NGO physician who
 * became a prisoner of the NLF aka Viet Cong when Quang Ngai fell in the Tet offensive,
 * was tried for war crimes, based on the evidence of being an American and in Viet Nam, and
 * was acquitted and released.)
 * To the best of my understanding, its complaint is partly premised on all casualties of conflict deserving treatment, and implicitly on its own pragmatic policy that possession of weapons by its patients while in their care is an unacceptable hazard to its short- and long-term effectiveness. IMO, there is every reason to believe that it includes on one hand staff who consider all warfare criminal, and on the other, staff who believe people's war doesn't even really qualify as warfare.  I don't trust any of the combatants in Afg., but MSF's complaint IIRC was founded on their assertion that there were no weapons in their hospital. I find it highly plausible that their leadership know of none, but i doubt they could be morally certain, and IMO such a specific assertion should inherently raise suspicion based on the likelihood that a handful of staff may wink, at guerillas who intend to rejoin the insurgency and insist on keeping hidden weapons. And in any case, while i would personally support legal immunity for aid workers who tolerate even armed patients returning to combat, i also would support the right of armies or police to seize either war criminals or wounded enemy soldiers from MSF hospitals (tho getting caught doing so is probably seldom politically expedient).   So kindly wonder no more, even if you weren't calling me a brute. We don't live in that simple a world. --Jerzy•t 12:01 ''& 12:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I found an extensive commentary to the Geniva Convention IV. Still less wiggle room and even less ambiguity than my understanding of the original text, just comments to Artcle 18 and 19 are already extensive and difficult to quote in short sentences. Is it better a long paragraph in this article, or would you all like better an extra article linked from here with some short sentences here? As you have told the material is not simple. the outside link to the commentary Jochum (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(Earlier incident)
In a previous incident, on 1 July 2015, heavily armed men from Afghan Special Forces entered the MSF hospital compound, cordoned off the facility and began shooting in the air. The armed men physically assaulted three MSF staff members and entered the hospital with weapons. They then proceeded to arrest three patients. Hospital staff tried their best to ensure continued medical care for the three patients, and in the process, one MSF staff member was threatened at gunpoint by two armed men. After approximately one hour, the armed men released the three patients and left the hospital compound. See: http://www.msf.org/article/afghanistan-msf-condemns-violent-armed-intrusion-hospital-kunduzFconaway (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The fundamental purpose of this talk page is to identify reliable content concerning the airstrike. I conjecture that logic of the preceding contrib to the page seems to be that MSF regards the soldiers in question to be thugs, therefore the air attack should be assumed to be mere thuggery, QED. It's not germane to the purpose of this page as it stands, and (while i strike thru irrelevant talk content on occasion) i favor having it stay as a negative example ("See that? Don't imitate it.) about responsible WP talk-page editing. --Jerzy•t 11:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The talk page is for communication between editors; a discussion to identify reliable content is but one subject of communication. I recorded this report here because of the vexed question of who may have called in the AC-130 gunship, and what may have prompted that.  The possibilities are many, and press reports are conflicting, but some, including General Campbell, have suggested that the request came from an Afghan Special Forces unit.  Apparently they did not accept the hospital's neutrality.  The allegations coming from the Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman and those coming from the Kunduz police are that the trauma center was being used by their enemies.  Given the history of partisan conflict and warlord influence in this area, there are some ugly possibilities.  See:  "U.S. military struggles to explain how it wound up bombing Doctors Without Borders hospital". Washington Post. 5 October 2015.  Rosenberg, Matthew (5 October 2015). "U.S. General Says Afghans Requested Airstrike That Hit Kunduz Hospital". The New York Times.Fconaway (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi user:Fconaway, I've added that to Kunduz Trauma Centre. Thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding International humanitarian law
Why are some editors trying to remove mentioning of the relevant portion of International humanitarian law. This includes links to the articles in Wikipedia. Do some editors have the opinion that in an Wikipedia article it is not legitimate to refer to another Wikipedia article with all the needed references? What about this facts is bothering you, and why is that than not discussed here on talk? My opinion is, that it is relevant to mention the first and fourth Geneva convention here.Jochum (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We aren't supposed to make this decision based on our opinions. According to WP:SYNTHESIS, a core content policy, we should only discuss topics which reliable sources have linked to the topic. Fortunately, in this case, we can probably find RS which do this: see, for example, this mainstream US outlet. The important thing is to be cautious and not go further than the sources. FourViolas (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The four Geneva Conventions are not my opinion and their text is not my opinion, they are signed an ratified by the USA. they are relevant.Jochum (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Do some editors have the opinion that in an Wikipedia article it is not legitimate to refer to another Wikipedia article with all the needed references? No, not an opinion but a relevant policy already explained to you on this talk page: WP:CIRCULAR. Stop edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are edit waring. VQuakr, I do not change your text, you are throwing mine out the references are their and now get lost. The Geneva Conventions are one of the the relevant information regarding this article.Jochum (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Some editors here are trying to keep references to the original text of the Geneva Conventions as published by the International Red Cross out of this article. The text was referenced to the source. I agree that at first I just linked to the page in Wikipedia without putting the original reference here in this article. The next time I put in the reference, again removed. Is the text of the Geneva Conventions so dangerous that it has to be censored? I am here really interested in the reason for that censorship and would like some answers from FourViolas and VQuakr, who are tag teaming in removing my contribution, without a proper discussion here on this page. Jochum (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you read WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:CIRCULAR as requested? Can you explain how you are ensuring your proposed text is compliant with those? You do not own the text you contribute here, and its inclusion is subject to consensus. VQuakr (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Happy to explain. The original text of the GC is a primary source, and a rather complicated and technical one. If you aren't a scholar or practitioner of international humanitarian law, we can't be sure that you're interpreting correctly that it's relevant here, or that the parts you included are the important ones, or whatever. (And even if you are such a scholar, we can't ask our readers to take your word for it.)
 * This could be an unpleasant situation we you can't have your way because of the rules, but it's not. There are reliable legal scholars published in mainstream media outlets, telling the world which parts of the law are important, how they might be applied, and what's likely to come of it. This is the information we need to include: it is more relevant, more true, and more helpful than whatever we ourselves would like to write about the situation. If you're still unsatisfied, read through WP:SYNTH, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:IRS again. FourViolas (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I happened to notice the note Jochum left on FourViolas' talk page. FourViolas and VQuakr are absolutely right on all points here. Jochum, some Wikipedia policies, and particularly the ones in play here, are hard to understand at first, but they exist for extremely good (if not at-first-obvious) reasons. All editors must learn to work within them. EEng (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I read WP:SYNTH and no I did not combine sentences or text to get a different meaning, I quoted original whole articles of the conventions. Yes I read VERIFIABILITY and the quote I did is verifiable. I accept that my first try went against circular so I put in the references at the second try. Primary sources are accepted in the Wikipedia. And I did not interpret anything, nor put forward my opinion. Your idea that nobody should read original text in regards to the Geneva Conventions is your opinion. Now we get to consensus and you both can explain to me how removing my contribution without discussion here beforehand is according to consensus. Of course there is a consensus between you two to censor me. It especially bothers me that newspapers do the synthesising, quoting part of the article combined with comments leaving out important parts and implying ambiguity. And I do not agree that the original text has no place here and that putting it here would break Wikipedia rules.Jochum (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * what everyone is trying to explain to you here is that you can't link to original texts, for instance the Geneva treaties, and explain to readers of Wikipedia how they relate to the Kunduz airstrike. Somebody else will arrive and explain that you've interpreted them wrong - that the airstrike was justified under international law - and we will all argue indefinitely about how we each believe we're right. That's no way to do things, which is why you have been directed to WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:VERIFIABILITY.


 * If you go to https://news.google.com and just type "Kunduz Geneva" into the search bar you will find that reliable sources discuss the issue you're concerned with. For instance, here is a CNN report where MSF calls the airstrike an attack on the Geneva Conventions. The issue is discussed here on NPR. These are possibly legitimate sources.


 * However, if you don't appreciate what people here are politely telling you, you're just going to get into trouble, and will eventually be blocked from editing. -Darouet (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again this discussion should not be here but on the talk page of the article and before somebody removes my contribution, that seems a convention you seem to be very prepared to ignore. I do not find your interpretation that Wikipedia bans primary sources. We are neither talking here about a witness to an event, nor original research, nor that this source is not independent or third party. I was quoting a verifiable text without commenting on it or interpreting it. I did not do a synthesis, that means combining incomplete quotes to a changed statement. I was not talking about this attack being a war crime either. The main problem with your view is that there are no independent interpretations from legal experts to this point. We have not seen yet any court of law and will properly never see a court decision confirming how the words of the Geneva Convention have to be interpreted. Any government will always be biased. But there are the simple words of the Geneva Convention, quite clear, not the usual legalese, stating quite clearly the position of a hospital in times of war, what its protection is and in what way this protection may be lost. You do have an article about the US Bill of rights in Wikipedia, I miss there the ban on quoting out of the original document. So allow me that I look at your and your colleagues acts with removing my contribution as plain censorship. Have a good day.Jochum (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "the simple words of the Geneva Convention, quite clear, not the usual legalese" Legalese or not, if you think anything in the law -- particularly international law -- is "quite clear", then you know nothing about law. Presenting treaty language, without reliable-source interpretation to put it in context, with the expectation that the reader will interpret it in the way you prefer, is itself SYNTH. The article United_States_Bill_of_Rights presents the text of the Bill of Rights, but with links to full articles discussing each amendment's meaning and interpretation -- not in the context of a sensational issue with the expectation that the reader will draw some particular conclusion about how the Bill's text applies to that issue.
 * What's needed here is a source discussing the applicability of the Convention to the situation -- actually several sources with different views, since there is certainly controversy on this. Wikipedia cannot present one simplistic view of what's going on. EEng (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Giving a reader all the information so that he can draw his own conclusion is exactly what information is about. If you deem some information as too dangerous than you are full tilt on the way to censorship. Show me the definition of synth as a reader being enabled to draw its own conclusions and I do not talk about your opinion.Jochum (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Laymen, who are our readers, are not able to intelligently interpret legal language, which is why it must be presented only through the lens of secondary sources explaining its meaning and its applicability to the article subject. What you want to do, under the guise of "giving the reader all the information", is to suggest to the reader that a naive reading, of isolated text divorced from legal context, is the correct one. It's not, and the fact that you're so eager to do that suggests that the naive reading is the one you prefer -- a serious danger signal. If you want to discuss the Convention as it applies to the article subject, you must do it via reliable secondary sources that specifically discuss the Convention's language, in the context of this subject. Looking at this diff, your text "In the case of the Kunduz Hospital and its protected status we can look at the First Geneva Convention" is grossly inappropriate, and the replacement text is appropriate. If there are other reliable sources giving different views, then those sources should be added as well, with appropriate balance and due regard for their level of authority and reliability. EEng (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I found an extensive commentary to the Geniva Convention IV. Still less wiggle room and even less ambiguity than my understanding of the original text, just comments to Artcle 18 and 19 are already extensive and difficult to quote in short sentences. Is it better a long paragraph in this article, or would you all like better an extra article linked from here with some short sentences here? As you have told the material is not simple. the outside link to the commentary Jochum (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Everything should stay in one article unless it's gotten so huge as to be unwieldy -- splitting articles into subarticles appropriately is a lot of trouble. You're starting to get the idea, but there's still a problem with your source -- you need sources that discuss the applicability of the Convention specifically in the context of this incident. No matter how much you may think it's obvious that what your source says applies to the current situation, it's WP:SYNTH to say, "See, what happened is exactly what this source is talking about. Therefore, what it concludes applies here too." There are many reasons this is forbidden (and if you follow the SYNTH link you'll see some good examples) but just for example, there may have been amendments to the Convention since that document's 1958 (!) publication, or court interpretations, or whatever. Plus every legal document employs technical terms that only a specialist lawyer can interpret. And all this is subject to controversy. Wikipedia's job will be to report and reflect the give-and-take among reliable sources exploring this issue (again, exploring it in the context of this incident), not to try to explore it for ourselves. Is the reason these rules are necessary beginning to make sense to you? EEng (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * neither of those sources appear to mention Kunduz. They are primary sources that can potentially be referenced in support of a secondary source, but the analysis of the applicability of international law needs to be done by an external (secondary) source. We cannot do it here; that would violate WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well actually, the "Military Law" link is a secondary source on the subject of the Convention, but the main problem remains: we need secondary sources that discuss the Covention specifically in the context of Kunduz. EEng (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But it answers the main question, what rules do apply.Jochum (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're just not getting it. The examples at WP:SYNTHN are very clear. I give up. EEng (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Synth: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

In what way was I breaking the rule of synth? I used one source. I quoted the source twice to make two different points about two different articles of the GC IV. I did not combine the quotes to make one statement. I did not comment them, I did not put forward an opinion. I did not provide a conclusion. It was a primary source, no original research involved by me. I did not take A and B to produce C. Both quotes were not provided out of a different context.

Orginal Wikipedia: SYNTH is not an advocacy tool[edit] "If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be." It is very clear at least, to me what you are doing.Jochum (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Do the Geneva Conventions mention Kunduz? Of course not; they predate them and it would be a synthesis to connect them yourself. Fortunately, this analysis has already been done by secondary sources, on which Wikipedia is based. Use someone else's published analysis instead. VQuakr (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Jochum, something else you need to learn is that here at Wikipedia it's a no-no to cast aspersions on other editors' motives -- see WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Whether you explicitly state the C or not, when you juxtapose A and B in a way that the reader will naturally conclude C as a natural consequence, you're doing the same thing. You're implying a conclusion, whether you state it or not. Can other editors chime in here, please? EEng (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should go to What SYNTH is not and do some reading. One quote: "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone".


 * Apart from that, if you guys would have followed the Wikipedia convention to explain why you were throwing out my contribution at the time on this talk, perhaps the conservation would not have come to this stage. Jochum (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * yeah, it was explained to you immediately and at length. Probably a moot point since it has been rewritten for policy compliance and you obviously lack either the inclination or the competence to be educated. VQuakr (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * obviously you're right about policy and it's great that you're trying to explain it, but there's no reason to be nasty. If Jochum was an asshole it'd be one thing… but especially since they have had zero impact on the page, and none of us are obliged to respond at length, here's no reason to get so worked up. -Darouet (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the context--particularly the edit-warring on Jochum's part, his lack of WP:AGF, a combative mindset, and his apparent insistence that he understands the policies being cited better than other contributors despite clearly very limited experience with them--I didn't perceive VQuakr's comment's to be particularly nasty, and I'm a right stickler for WP:Civility. VQ's choice of words hit the mark for me regarding what seems to be the problem here: WP:Competency is required and sometimes (indeed, frequently on this project) competence is about recognizing that you are dealing with a process of which you have limited understanding and taking on-board the explanations and advice of those who are familiar with said processes. Jochum, it would seem, would rather assume he has all of the answers after making a few dozens edits to the project.


 * Then again, most editors do make some similar embarrassing assumptions about policy when starting out, so I'm inclined to cut some slack and try not to WP:BITE the newbie. But by the same token, I see little fault in VQuakr pointing out to Jochum that he is being obstinate and closing himself off from much-needed instruction.  Frankly, looking at Jochum's talk page, getting that information repeatedly now, such that he hopefully internalizes it, might be the only thing that spares him from a block in the not-too-distant future.  That's my two cents anyway.  S n o w  let's rap 06:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well...I took a stab at adding the material in a somewhat acceptable manner. It is a long quote.  I hesitated because I almost feel I was bullied into it but on the other hand one has to give credit to an editor that just keeps trying...  Experienced editors, please feel free to edit my feeble attempt... Gandydancer (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Protection of hospitals under Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions.
I assume that if I would now after enlarging on the quotation atributeted to M. Cherif Bassiouni in add a reference to the text of the GC IV I would the make the error of synth, or does the mentioning of the Geneva Convention in this quote opens up the possibility to quote the GC IV? I hope that before somebody removes this time my contribution he/she will discuss that here on this page.Jochum (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I found on Fusion Network an article with a quotation of Article 19 GC IV. that article agrees with my view, that the Article 19 is rather clear in its message. Has any body an argument against me adding this quote from the article:


 * America’s disastrous bombing raid on a Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz has hallmarks of a war crime. The Geneva Conventions are, after all, clear:


 * Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.


 * The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.Jochum (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The point of my "fight" here is to make clear that a hospital does not lose its protection in regards to who ever wounded or sick person they treat. It is rather the other way round, the hospital is supposed to treat everybody. Here we look at the Geneva Convention IV. It is in regards to civilians and civilian institution. The definitions used in GC I, II and III do not apply. The hospital can not and is not supposed to bother about who is fighting whom, if a war is declared or not and so on, it is to be completely neutral. The other point is what protected means. The military of a country, having signed and ratified GC IV, has actively try to avoid attacking or hitting a civilian hospital and if that military decides that that hospital lost its protected status it has to give a warning before attacking. Again nothing to do with who the enemy is.Jochum (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry to speak so harshly, but I have become pretty sick of your apparent belief that you are better informed than the rest of us and more able to judge what is or is not appropriate for this article. I added your latest addition in a more encyclopedic manner, though if the truth be known I don't believe that it improves the article and will not be surprised or feel bad if it is deleted. The other editors here are well aware of the issues that you seem to think we are not aware of, but they are also aware of how difficult it can be to properly construct an article.  I'd suggest that from now on you present your intended edits on the talk page for input before putting them in the article.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The information I added is relevant and was not in the article before and that editors believe that that information has no place here is ridiculous, you are fighting against stating the rules that apply to this kind of incident. To avoid any misunderstanding I took the quote out of the relevant article without any change to not be accused again of your all encompassing syn of synth. I have advertised other information to put into this article and if I like it to be discussedJochum (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please quit saying that I'm fighting to keep information from the article and that my actions/thoughts are "ridiculous". I'm doing my best to stay within guideline boundaries and still present information.  I strayed from guidelines twice already - first when I redid the second paragraph using the info that you added but included copy re the Geneva Convention (which was not in the source).  The second time I included a quote twice as long as guidelines suggest.  Per guidelines that long quote should have been boxed, which I was not willing to do because it would afford it importance to the article while that was not appropriate.  You are promoting what has been called a "battleground" mentality here which leaves me and I'm sure others frustrated.  We are not fighting your intentions, just trying to help you learn how this place works. Gandydancer (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * America’s disastrous bombing raid on a Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz has hallmarks of a war crime. The Geneva Conventions are, after all, clear:
 * Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.
 * The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy. Jochum (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's definitely the right direction: it's a secondary source discussing how the international treaties in question are relevant to this specific situation.


 * I see some problems, though. It's written like an opinion piece, not a news article, and it looks like it hasn't had much editorial oversight. This means that it's only as reliable as its author. So who is the author? Felix Salmon, a journalist experienced in writing about finance and educated in art history. Unfortunately, I don't think he's qualified to pick apart the legal details on this; as EEng explained, legalese is more complicated than it might seem.


 * Here are some alternative sources:
 * An article explaining the legal issues in question written by a professor specializing in international humanitarian law
 * Jonathan Horowitz discussing the issue, arguing that the actions were indeed illegal under international law; he has worked in humanitarian law, and been published in multiple reliable legal journals.
 * Thanks for your contributions and patience. It's very important to follow policy here, but I think we can cover the material well within the necessary guidelines. Oh, and one more policy to look at: WP:COPYVIO, which explains why it's not okay to just copy and paste writing previously published elsewhere. FourViolas (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the kunduz hospital attack and the fourth Geneva convention
I use as reference the original "commentary published under the general editorship of Jean S. PICTET, Director for General Affairs of the International Committee of the Red Cross. IV GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR" When is the GC IV applicable and why the Kunduz hospital airstrike falls under GC IV is contained in the GC IV itself. The first two points are easy, the USA has signed and ratified the GC IV. The strike is done by the USA military in another country.

Article 1 'The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. Quoting the commentary: "By undertaking at the very outset to respect the clauses of the Convention, the Contracting Parties drew attention to the special character of that instrument. It is not an engagement concluded on a basis of reciprocity, binding each party to the contract only in so far as the other party observes its obligations. It is rather a series of unilateral engagements solemnly contracted before the world as represented by the other Contracting Parties. Each State contracts obligations vis-h-vis itself and at the same time vis-h-vis the others."

and "The Contracting Parties do not undertake merely to respect the Convention, but also to ensure respect for it. The wording may seem redundant. When a State contracts an engagement, the engagement extends eo ipso to all those over whom it has authority, as well as to the representatives of its authority ; and it is under an obligation to issue the necessary orders.

and " The words " in all circumstances " which appear in this Article, do not, of course, cover the case of civil war1, as the rules to be followed in such conflicts are laid down by the Convention itself, in Article 3. The expression refers to all situations in which the Convention has to be applied, as described, for example, in Article 2. Disregarding the provisions applicable in peacetime, and Article 3 which relates only to conflicts not of an international character, the words " in all circumstances " mean that as soon as one of the conditions of application for which Article 2 provides, is present, no Contracting Party can offer any valid pretext, legal or otherwise, for not respecting the Convention in its entirety. The words in question also mean that the application of the Convention does not depend on the character of the conflict.

ARTICLE 2 In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Quoting the commentary: "By its general character, this paragraph deprives belligerents, in advance, of the pretexts they might in theory put forward for evading their obligations. There is no need for a formal declaration of war, or for recognition of the existence of a state of war, as preliminaries to the application of the Convention. The occurrence of de facto hostilities is sufficient."

The commentary is quite long and one can go on quoting it, but the result is this part of convention was written to make it self evident that the GC IV is applicable to any armed conflict that a contracting power is involved in. The USA is an contracting power, the USA is involved in a conflict, one has to look to the GC IV regarding the kunduz hospital air strike.

I would put in the article, the GC IV makes it self evident that the Kunduz hospital air strike falls under the provisions of GC IV and then bring the rules contained in article 18 and 19.Jochum (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * When an editor says something's "self-evident" it's a red flag for SYNTH, not to mention you're using a 65-y.o. document -- is it still current? Have there been no amendments in the meantime? You just can't build an article like that. EEng (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For your information: The man who wrote the rules of warJochum (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No there have been no changes to the GC IV, 1949 was the last time they were revised. There are three additional protocols to the the Geneva conventions. The USA ratified protocol III only, relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem. So that is what is in place regarding the USA. A small search should have told you that. The commentary I used is from Jean Pictet, read up on him. If you can find one living or deceased, who did or does know more about the Geneva Conventions, tell me about it.
 * I change the proposed text to, the preamble and the first three articles of the GC IV emphasize that the provisions of the GC IV applies to every armed conflict, and that brings the Kunduz hospital air strike under the provisions of GC IV. and then come the rules contained in article 18 and 19. Jochum (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the last time: you need secondary sources specifically discussing that "the Kunduz hospital air strike [comes] under the provisions of GC IV. and then come the rules contained in article 18 and 19". What you're doing is WP:OR. If you persist behaving as if you can't understand what we're telling you, you may find yourself under a WP:COMPETENCE block. I'm not kidding. EEng (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I brought a source that says, that EVERY armed conflict one of the signatory powers is involved in comes under the provisions of GC IV. What excludes Kunduz from every? According to GC IV there is no exception and no signatory power can claim an exemption from GC IV. I do not talk about the other three GCs, this point is special with GC IV.Jochum (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And to the guy collapsing my argument. I brought a secondary source and if you collapse what I am saying with a wrong argument, what does that say about you?Jochum (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

it has been explained to you every way we know how ("we" being myself and five other editors) why neither extensive quotes of the Geneva Conventions nor your personal analysis of the legality of the attack are going to be added to the article. I just broadened the secondary coverage of the attack, however, adding analysis by two more secondary sources in addition to the comments by Bassiouni added by. Maybe it is easier for you to see the difference as an example?

Acceptable:

Not acceptable:

See the difference? VQuakr (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see the difference. Next proposal: The Commentary to the GC IV, published under the general editorship of Jean S. Pictet, the main architect of the GC IV, declares that the purpose of the wording of the first 3 articles of the GC IV is, to include any armed conflict a signing power is involved in, under the provision set down in the articles of the GC IV.
 * The articles pertaining to the protection of a civil hospital are articles number 18 and 19. Jochum (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the proposed source does not mention the subject of this article, the Kunduz attack. I did just wikilink GC IV though, which is sourceable to the ABC news source already in the article which is about the Kunduz airstrike. VQuakr (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would propose a slight edit, not article 4 of the Geneva Convention, but article 18 and 19 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, or just the  Fourth Geneva Convention.Jochum (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ VQuakr (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote from Jonathan Horowitz regarding the Kunduz hospital airstrike.
Quote "under certain specific and narrowly tailored conditions, individuals can be attacked even when their actions fall short of carrying weapons or opening fire on the enemy." this way of quoting turned the quote on his head.

I put in the whole quote saying really something completely different.

Quote "To be sure, under certain specific and narrowly tailored conditions, individuals can be attacked even when their actions fall short of carrying weapons or opening fire on the enemy. But this alone does not necessarily justify the attack on the hospital."85.246.105.55 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a no-brainer. -Darouet (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * LjL and Materialscientist, the quote as it was, was taken out of context the beginning of the sentence removed and the qualifying remark not taken with it, implying the opposite of what Jonathan Horowitz was saying. That is why I put in the whole quote, to make clear what he was saying. Argue here or stop undoing my revision. I posted my argument with my revision you did your undo without an argument.Jochum (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with omitting the "To be sure" part as extraneous. Keeping the second sentence makes sense. I don't think it makes the quote the "exact opposite" as claimed. Jochum thanks for the help, WP:BRD, etc. VQuakr (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The older usage of the quote implies, that Jonathan Horowitz said that under certain circumstances the attack was justified, where in reality he said that even those circumstances would not justify the attack. If that is not the opposite, than what was the meaning?Jochum (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think either length of quotation is faithful to the source, which concludes that independent investigation is needed. You assertion about Horowitz's conclusion doesn't match the actual content of the source. VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two quotes from Horowitz. One regarding if the attack could have been justified and the second that according to his judgement an independent investigation would be needed. The first quote regarding the justification of the attack was changed by removing the but... sentence. In quoting only the first sentence one could assume that Horowitz could be of the opinion that the attack could be justified, the but... removed that doubt. If you do not understand the difference you should perhaps start thinking about it.Jochum (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a qualified statement followed by an inverse qualified statement. You are being unnecessarily melodramatic. VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Legal consequences
I am missing a military or mission management analysis of what went wrong in the chain of command. Also is missing who covered for whom using legal tricks, so that nobody went to prison for life for this crime. Can anybody dig in how it works in US military justice that it "our boys" are protected? Zezen (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I watched the press conference regarding the released report on the 29th of April. A question regarding negligence was evaded. A question regarding the time lag between the complained of MSF of being attacked and the end of the tack was answered very diffuse. It seems that the ground commander having called the strike, had to be involved in the decision to call it off. It is a bit strange that realising that your airplane attacks a protected hospital does not lead to an immediate order to stop the attack, but has to be routed through some chain of command leading to delays in calling the stop. It should be a reason for a high ranking officer to get involved and an order straight to the aircraft.Jochum (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Internationally-recognized symbol
Why no mention of the Emblems of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in the article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Daily Caller
 * Slate

Because MSF does not fly the red cross nor the red crescent. The red cross or crescent are the symbol of the red cross or government agencies. One needs a permission by the involved government to fly the red cross. MSF flies its own flag.

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/int-msf.html

There is also no question that the airstrike hit a protected target, as even the internal USA military investigation concedes.Jochum (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * These are not government agencies but non-profit organizations. The fact that the organization was not properly displaying the emblems were stated as reasons for the lack of proper identification of the facility as one ran by the MSF.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Daily Caller, are you joking? Produce an adequate source and we can discuss. VQuakr (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There were multiple sources, and I guess censorship or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT apparently is allowed here?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)