Talk:Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal of copy-righted information

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV Dispute

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  organization vs organisation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Structure: add history section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RfC at Wikileaks talk page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More developments on the Douma scandal