Talk:OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bellingcat

Is the Bellingcat report on the OPCW [1] really noteworthy enough to be included here? We don't want this article to become an edit war battleground do we? I recommend deleting that sentence rather than fighting over sources. It's tangential. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Bobfrombrockley, yes I agree. Dr. Cross again removed an important part of my sentence plus the link without discussing it here. I will not go in any edit quarel (war) with him. So feel free to do as you like, I will do nothing, better to keep it clean. KR , FrankBierFarmer (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and Whistleblowers

How can this article not include a section on the OPCW inspectors who have gone on record repudiating the organization's report on the Duoma attack? Just today, Aaron Mate at Grayzone reported that internal OPCW documents refute reported claims by the DG and show the leading whistleblower was a key member of the investigation team.76.64.51.70 (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, https://thegrayzone.com/tag/opcw-whistleblowers/ —Jerome Potts (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grayzone (RSP entry) was deprecated as an unreliable source in a March 2020 RfC. — Newslinger talk 22:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]