Talk:Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

Removal of copy-righted information

I decided to revert this version. A well-meaning anonymous user copy/pasted the background info available on every press release (example). Most of the information actually deals with the chemical weapons convention as opposed to this organisation, which is why I didn't even try to salvage it. Note that the anonymous user's IP traced back to an opcw.org server, so he or she most likely works there - this made reverting a really tough choice and I hope I did the right thing. --Moritz 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The article paragraph describing the firing of the head of the organization uses inflammatory terms such as "US orchestrated", "true reason", and "excuse" to support a claim that it was only done to justify the US invasion of Iraq. There is no citation other than a UN judgement - the UN is NOT automatically without bias, and there are no discussions or citations of any alternate views, such as the one of the US government. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 19:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've followed this story from the beginning[1] and have rewritten it here with as many good citations as I can find. I think I've got all the claims sourced and put into objective terms, including the way that the US government claims were never backed up, and how they disappeared once they got what they wanted.

To me, the effective erasure of this event from the official record is most upsetting, and is one of the reasons why the wikipedia is so important for preserving the history that the official organizations would rather us forget -- presumably so that we are doomed to repeat it.

The article is still unsatisfactory, though. I'd like to see some reporting on what other specific things the OPCW has done, and not dwell entirely on this mess, important though it is in illustrating how current international conventions can be made to fail. Goatchurch 10:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This section is entirely unacceptable in both its content and sourcing. One of the sources, "The Marxist Online" cannot be considered a valid and reputable source without additional support. Moreover, large portions of this section are without citations. I recommend that this paragraph be deleted. Of course, if reasonable sources can be found the paragraph should remain, albeit without the inflammatory writing. -Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.116.197 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Errors

I changed the spelling of Iraq from Irak to the correct spelling no other changes were made --Sperryfreak01 10:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC):

There are still many spelling errors in the version up right now (26/07/2006, 15:56 CET), such as "jeapardized". I didn't bother editing them since the current version is anything but neutral. I haven't followed this dispute, nor am I completely aware of internal workings of the OPCW. It seems quite clear, though, that saying the former chairman was removed because he "got in the way of larger things" since he "jeapardized [sic] the case for war" is not a clear and common-knowledge fact, nor is it backed up by any sources. It may very well be true, but it isn't confirmed in any official or historical report. I'm not a registered user, and I don't want to get involved in any internal wiki-problems, so I just added the "disputed" tag to the article. No matter what the current standing, it's quite clearly something controversial that hasn't been settled yet, so some sort of tag to warn unknowing users of this would seem prudent. If anyone really feels a need to respond to this, e-mail me at "rpaulus at vub dot ac dot be" - but if it's spam or a personal attack, I'll happily ignore it, so don't bother.

Wow

This is the most terrible wikipedia article I ever read. I cry to think about what it looked like before it was edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.55 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your in-depth evaluation and detailed criticism. You are most welcome to improve! L.tak (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

organization vs organisation

This page was moved without discussion because of a "spelling error". I am not familiar with the correct wording in BE or AE, but only know that the opcw website uses the spelling organisation. That seems to me more than enough reason to keep it at the previous loction. Could someone please move it back? L.tak (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070916235040/http://www.opcw.org///na_infopack/6_reports/Synthesis/synthesis_three/p_thirtyfive_thirtysix_thirtyseven.htm to http://www.opcw.org/

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) 16:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Structure: add history section?

I think this article could do with a 'History' section. Some of the information in the top summary doesn't really warrant inclusion there. For a model, check out the International Atomic Energy Agency. Is it OK if I add that section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quietconcerned8 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Good sources i.e. several reliable sources that are verifiable are needed for texts. Unverified Dutch language dead end streams are not reliable sources and are thus of no value - no source. Doctoral historian (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

correct. you could als have used a -sign or found an alternative source rather than removing the data (which was sourced by a stream from the major news outlet in NL) L.tak (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Wikileaks talk page

An RfC which may interest editors who have been following the recent revelations about the OPCW report on the 2018 Douma Chemical attack has commenced at the Wikileaks talk page. Burrobert (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Powers

The significance of the recent changes may be lost on the uninformed reader. I propose the addition of the following sentence to the end of this section:

"By making this change, the prime focus of the organisation shifted from the technical to the political arena."

Thoughts? Piedmont (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The statement itself has merit, however, it doesn’t seem to appear in either of the references used in the section. What is your source? Burrobert (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Reuters. To align the proposed new text more closely with the sources, perhaps the following text (intended to replace the text of the whole section) will be more acceptable:

The OPCW has the power to say whether chemical weapons were used in an attack it has investigated. Following the alleged Douma chemical attack of 7th April 2018, in June of that year it granted itself new powers to assign blame for attacks. These new powers caused the OPCW, once a largely technical organization, to split along political lines.

Piedmont (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you using the following quote to construct the last sentence?:

The Syrian war has split the OPCW, once largely a technical organization, along political lines, with Russia and its ally Syria on one side and the United States, France and Britain on the other.

Burrobert (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course - that's it. Piedmont (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is worth mentioning that that there is now a political divide and the reason for that. Burrobert (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the referencing (which is important!), we should not overstate the importance of this decision for the organisation itself. Investigations of alleged use have always been a tiny number, and the majority of the work concerns verification of destruction of chemical weapons and inspection of chemical industry. That's a highly technical job that hasn't changed at all. The only change is that for the first time a change in the convention was agreed, and that is -by its nature- a political activity. The effect (showing who has done someting) may be regarded political, but is in itself also a technical matter ... L.tak (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be overstated, but as things stand right right now, it isn't mentioned at all. The fact that the organisation is currently divided on political lines should at least be mentioned. Piedmont (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we add the decisions of 2018, and those who formally initiated them them forward (UK and others) and the voting records of the individual countries (with a map?). That will show the divide of the member states on this issue. I would suggest this source https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-07/news/opcw-granted-mandate-place-blame. We should also add this to the chemical weapons convention which has much information on the activities of the OPCW (it is a bit of a arbitrary choice to place those there or here...) L.tak (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

More developments on the Douma scandal

This hasn’t made its way to this article yet for some reason but is included in other articles that mention the Douma attack. There has been another development related to the OPCW’s handling of its Douma investigation.

The opcw recently released a report targeting the two whistleblowers, Ian Henderson and “Alex”. A third whistleblower has now come forward to support the previous two.An email obtained by The Grayzone corroborates complaints by Henderson and his colleague about senior management’s suppression of evidence collected by the team that deployed to Syria. It also details an atmosphere of intimidation with opcw. The article discusses the evidence related to Henderson’s role in the organisation and concludes that it was more senior than the opcw had said in its report. The article goes over the timeline of events related to the douma investigation and reports, including what is known about the internal opcw discussions about what happened in douma and how the final report was created.

Former director general Jose Bustani, who himself was ousted from the organisation due to American pressure (as mentioned in the opcw wiki page), said that “The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had,” Bustani said after the session. “The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing.” Bustani added that he hoped the Douma revelations “will catalyse a process by which the [OPCW] can be resurrected to become the independent and non-discriminatory body it used to be.”

Hope this helps give editors a perspective on what is happening. Perhaps it will get a mention here one day. Drop in on one of the other pages related to the Douma attack to see what is happening there. Burrobert (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

References