Talk:Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
