Talk:Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons

form follows function: What is this article about?

The discussion on the proposed move is getting out of hand, as many (me included) have different views on the subject matter of this article. We need to get this out of the way, before we can discuss naming. I'll set the background

• There is an article already on the UN Security Council resolution
• This article started specifically focussing on the US-RU Framework, but then started covering the 2 other agreements; and it's possible it'll start covering also the inspection and (if existent) the destruction process
• There is an article on the Syrian war

I see a few options:

1. this article goes back to covering the US-RU Framework and we rewrite to focus on that. Consequence: We'll need an extra article for teh actions regarding the anticipated inspection and destruction process
2. We accept this article will cover the whole lot: from agreements to inspection and destruction: that means we have to change the name
3. This page covers the diplomatic efforts: thus only the agreements, but not the inspection and destruction activities

Please give your input in this section regarding the subject matter; that should focus the discussion of the naming.. L.tak (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think your (?) original idea, to call this Elimination of Syria's chemical weapons, is most in accord with what I thought we were doing, and I withdraw any criticism I had of that. That is implied, for example, by the implementation section. Frankly, the original Framework is a small and increasingly smaller part of the story: the process from first negotiation to final destruction needs an article.Haberstr (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Or we could call it 2013-2014 Elimination of Syria's chemical weapons, since the UN Resolution and the other agreements have set those time limits. If the elimination is unsuccessful, we could change the title later.

I there's consensus on "We accept this article will cover the whole lot: from agreements to inspection and destruction". The current title, or "Elimination of Syrian chemical weapons", or "Disarmament of Syria" (analogous Disarmament of Libya, any of those are fine with me. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

At risk of offending someone, I'll mention that "Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons" (in quotes) has 7.2 million hits on Google, while "Elimination of Syria's chemical weapons" has only about 150,000.Haberstr (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for archiving so much useful discussion

The problem is that only one 'request a move' box is allowed on each talk page. And it seems that we're getting very close to that stage.Haberstr (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by Haberstr. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons → Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons – 'Agreement to' is overly restrictive, considering that the actual topic is the entire process from first negotiations to actual destruction/elimination of chemical weapons. Regarding 'Destruction' vs. 'Elimination', the first full name in quotes gets 4,800 hits on Google News, while the second receives 2,000. On the general Google, the numbers are 7.2 million vs. 150,000. Nonetheless, let's discuss the two leading options and any other ideas people have. See also WP:UCN, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION, WP:PRECISE, and WP:CONCISE. Regarding duplication, editors should feel free to create articles on the Secy Council resolution and/or the 'Framework', but this article's concept is to be an 'A to Z' entry, analogous to Disarmament of Libya. Finally, I apologize for rushing the previous name change and will not do so this time. Haberstr (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Per my post on the previous move request, I think such renaming would be premature. For the time being, we only have an agreement to eliminate Syria's CW. No actual destruction has taken place. I think there needs to be significant progress on actual destruction before the name is changed. I also think "eliminate" is the more accurate term, since that may come either by destruction in country or by removal from the country pending destruction. NPguy (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Destruction is the end goal of the process, whether it occurs in Syria or not, so I don't see a problem there. The destruction process began on October 1, it is one of the top news stories in the world, and Wikipedia appears not to have an entry about that topic. It only has articles on 'agreements', which give the appearance of not being about the actual doing. Finally, as L.tak has pointed out (on the archived talk page), there is an article on Accession of Turkey to the European Union, which has not happened yet if ever, and articles on 'destruction of U.S. chemical weapons' and 'elimination of Russia's chem weapons', neither of which has concluded.Haberstr (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that the destruction has begun I change my vote to support. Once all chemical weapons are either destroyed or removed from Syria, I would recommend a further name change from "destruction" to "elimination." NPguy (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Support, as it will lead to two articles: one on the framework, where other stuff is put in that context; and one on the whole process as a whole. I have indeed no problems with indicating the end-goal as an article title (the [[Accession of Turkey to the European Union is a good example, as many indeed doubt if it is ever going to happen). I have not a strong opinion on Destruction vs Elimination, slightly preferring destruction for consistency with the chemical weapons convention text and as it is the common name of the process (at least: before Syria came into play; now I don't know what the press is doing); but I do not understand how the names elimination or destruction are related to the location of the destruction process. It's about Syria's arsenal (the things they declare to OPCW); and the title indeed should not be: Destruction of weapons in Syria: destruction is more about the process (chemical treatment etc); elimination is more about the end goal (they do not exist anymore)… L.tak (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Until some destruction or elimination actually happens, the agreement is all there is. bd2412 T 15:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: what would you like this page to be about? The UN security council resolution, The Decision of OPCW, or the Framework of the US/RU, or the process as a whole? Whatever we choose: the status quo is terribly imprecise; and that is a bit embarrassing to be honest… L.tak (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

One article should be enough. I see no need for a separate article on the Framework or the OPCW decisions, although the UN resolution already has its own article. NPguy (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Actual destruction has not taken place, but it is set to begin this week, October 6-12. What cries out to me is that the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons is one of the world's biggest news stories and there is no Wikipedia entry on it. We of course don't know whether the effort will be successful. As stated earlier, there are incomplete and unsuccessful efforts similarly labeled in Wikipedia to the proposed name for this article.86.36.66.129 (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What I gather from the preceding is that there is consensus for a name change IF/when destruction has begun. It has begun, so I'll rename the article. I agree, though I wouldn't fight them, that there do not need to be separate articles on the OPCW Decision or the US/Russian Framework.Haberstr (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Synthesis

Severe synthesis problem with the following:

Allegations of undisclosed sites

Syria has disclosed 19 chemical weapons-related sites, but Western intelligence sources state that 45 sites exist in total. Chemical weapons expert Gwyn Winfield commented that the success of the destruction plan depends on Syria revealing all of its chemical arms stockpile, much of which is moveable and may be spread across dozens of sites. Winfield added that Syria has an incentive to hold onto some of its chemical weapons, since its original incentive for developing a chemical weapons capability, as a deterrent against a suspected Israeli nuclear weapons arsenal, "isn't going to go away."

The "45 sites" claim is from 10 Sep, which precedes any Syrian disclosure. The "19 sites" claim is from... where? Not clear. But the "might not disclose" claims are also from 10 Sep - there's no concrete allegation of non-disclosure, and with the stuff being mobile and moved around, 19 being less than 45 isn't prima facie proof of it even if the prior 45 claim is accepted as correct. So I've removed this section, putting the 10 Sep info in the previous section. Where is the "19 sites" claim from?? Podiaebba (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Direct quote from the Economist article: "While the OPCW does not go into details, the Syrians have mentioned 19 chemical weapons-related sites—far fewer than the 45 that Western intelligence agencies believe to exist." Article date is Oct 5. Maybe you were looking at the wrong article? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hm, confusion caused by the synthesis (using 10 Sep comments as if they relate to Oct OPCW disclosures). Restored Economist's 19-sites claim (this info is not public, AFAIK, so not verifiable from OPCW). Podiaebba (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the confusion, but it appears to be a moot point. Thank you for restoring the claim. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusion: I missed the October Economist article completely when I was reading the para, because of the way the 10 Sep article material which was the bulk of the para was tacked on afterwards (as the most recent material normally would be). Podiaebba (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is a synthesis problem, it's the implication that Winfield's comment was related to the sources for the first sentence. I hope that has been fixed by my moving around of things in that section today.Haberstr (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Implementation difficulties and ceasefires

It's not a big deal to me, but IMHO this paragraph doesn't belong in "Implementation challenges":

"On 12 October, Asharq Al-Awsat (a Saudi-linked pan-Arab newspaper) reported upon an exclusive interview with "FSA media and political coordinator Louay Miqdad" that "the FSA rejected a prolonged 9-month ceasefire with the Assad regime in order to allow the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to carry out its operations overseeing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile."[50]"

The cited article doesn't indicate that this will create an "implementation challenge", as the paper makes clear the rebels are open to short-term ceasefires as needed, but that they don't think a 9-month general ceasefire is necessary at this time, since none of the Syrian chemical weapons plants are on the front lines where battles are taking place. If another article does draw the connection that it's an implementation challenge, then it would be appropriate for this section. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Safe access to the CW stocks is self-evidently an implementation challenge - are you expecting sources to respect Wikipedia section headings?? However it's true that the paragraph doesn't accurately portray the FSA position as given in the article. I've clarified it quickly, but the result is clunky and can be edited. Podiaebba (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is easy to solve with a transitional phrase that reminds readers that the ongoing civil war is a 'challenge', obviously.Haberstr (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This not not so easy because even the term "civil war" itself is biased, at the least in regards to foreign fighters taking part (how can foreign fighters partake in a civil war? as mercenaries? What if their number outnumbers the "regular" amount of fighters? Who is the authority to make up to decide on this anyway? And so on and so forth). 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 05:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments should be posted soon. Thanks for the work you've put into this! --1ST7 (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I did some minor copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:

1. Well-written

   • This sentence is a little awkward: "The most important of these is the unanimously adopted UN Security Council Resolution 2118, which imposed on Syria responsibilities and a timeline for the destruction of its chemical weapons and chemical weapons production facilities." Please rephrase. The second sentence could also use a rephrase, specifically at the "made binding on Syria" part.
   • In the second paragraph, can you please change "responded to positively by" to "received positive responses from"?
   • Please mention the Ghouta chemical attack in the lead, as it is the primary reason for the destruction of the weapons.
   • "(Under the UN Charter, Chapter VII measures range from "demonstrations" to sanctions or military action and can be vetoed by any of the five permanent members of the Security Council.)" You don't need parentheses for this.
   • There are some places where the article uses "U.S." or "U.K." or "U.N.", and there are other places where it uses "US" or "UK" or "UN". It doesn't matter which style is used, but it needs to be consistent.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   • The last sentences for both paragraphs under "Negotiations and Agreement" need citations. (Done)
   • So does the last one under "Overview and Enforcement". (Done)
   • The references that have been used look fine, but the style is inconsistent. For example, Reuters is in italics in some citations and is not in others. (WP:GA? and WP:WGN: "(Avoid) requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" -Rolf)

3. Broad in its coverage:

   • Please add a little more information on the Ghouta attack in the background section.

4. Neutral:

   • Appears relatively so.

5. Stable:

   • Looking at the article's history, it appears to have undergone frequent, significant changes. That's understandable, considering the process is still ongoing. For this to pass, you will have to commit to keeping it up to GA standards.
   • Much of the text uses present tense, which is also understandable, considering how this is happening right now. However, this is likely to change sometime in the next few months, at which point some of the text is going to need to be rephrased.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

As a whole, I am mostly concerned about the status of the article as a current event, as it could undergo a number of significant changes in the next few months. For now, I'm going to put this on hold for a week to give you time to address the above issues. Thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"For this to pass, you will have to commit to keeping it up to GA standards" Do you just mean in general like any other GA, or is this an extra requirement based on stability concerns? The latter seems odd, I'd think either it passes the stability criterion or it doesn't, but I am not a reviewer. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for adding those sources to the article. Secondly, I mean that at the moment, it seems relatively stable, but that could change in the future because this is a current event. As this situation develops over the course of the next few months, the article may need an update. Contributing editors will need to make sure those updates comply with the GA criteria. --1ST7 (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Made all Well-written suggested edits, with possible exception of 'consistency' on U.K., U.N., U.S. OR UK, UN, US. I changed all to consistently UK, UN, and U.S. "US" just looks inappropriate outside of a headline in my humble opinion, in part probably because major newspapers in the U.S. (NY Times, WaPost) use only "U.S." "US" is used by major British publications (BBC, Guardian). But, no big deal if someone wants to go 'all the way' with the suggested consistency change.Haberstr (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That should be fine. --1ST7 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the inconsistent reference style, is there consensus that it's not a priority? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the style is similar enough that it won't prevent the article from being passed, though it is preferable that the article be as consistent as possible. --1ST7 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked the article over again, and I believe everything that needs to be addressed has been addressed. As far as stability goes, it does not seem to change on a day to day basis as a result of content dispute or edit wars. Therefore, I'm passing it. Congratulations, and thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Subdividing 'implementation challenges' subsection is a good idea

I have created one sub-subsection, on 'alleged undisclosed sites', but more could be constructed. For user-friendleness's sake we shouldn't go backwards to a very long subsection not subdivided.Haberstr (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

pls cite news, not cite web, where appropriate

If there's no objections, we should standardize moving forward on "cite news newspaper=" rather than the more general "cite web work=" for citing newspaper web pages, as the two citations are formatted differently from one another in the citations section. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

State assistance and rejection section

Clearly 3rd party states have been approached for help in the disposal of the weapons. I believe there is a strong need in the article for these nations to be listed and have their pro and con views discussed as well as their ultimate decision to participate or decline. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Doyna Yar Can you contribute some sources? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately as of late I barely have the time to put my pants on in the morning, and surprisingly have managed not to miss that detail (yet). Anywho- there have been at least four nations contacted for assistance Albania, Norway, France, and Belgium with 'i think' 3 rejecting and Norway willing to assist though not on their territory. I believe some of that is here http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/belgium-candidate-destroy-syria-gas-20922242. It's been widely reported of Albania's refusal despite their own CW destruction program. And if I'm not mistaken, it's actually forbidden under the CWC for the weapons to be transferred to a CWC signatory nation. That means any destruction program outside Syria is definitely bending the CWC rules to say the least. The only non-CWC nation bordering Syria is Israel and nobody could hold their breath that long. And now I go to bed and start my cycle of hell all over again. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source: [1]. OPCW is tendering for private companies to destroy some chemicals, and it seems a seaborne destruction option is under consideration for actual CW. Podiaebba (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

a relevant article in the trade journal Chemistry World

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/05/syrian-chemical-weapons-feature – Kaihsu (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC) As the United States as well as Russia has missed a good opportunity. USA, - the military contribution to get (after the victory). The Russia - to secure his state loans. Now that, Maybe 100 years to wait until the funds for military - loans to Mr. Assad come back. Incidentally, the same as in Iraque. Reason for a military peacekeeping action was - the application of unkonventionele Chimi- weapons. As part of insurgents (modern Gaz - grenade on 18/08.2014) as well as by Assad - Armi, as a counter-attack with sarin outdated - rocket on 21/08/2014. Killing potential Chimi - Weapons are sufficient to whole Syria - to destroy population.Cigareta Kent (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Linking to paywall-articles

There is a link towards haaretz, allegedly about an article where Syria still would have weapons of mass destruction. However had, the article is behind a paywall, that is, one has to login in order to read this. What is wikipedia's policy on that? Not everyone will be able to access and follow such a link, thus the information contained there is hidden. Is this a credible source behind any paywall in general (the above example for haaretz is only one example among many)? 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

New details from the evacuation of the chemcal weapons

The Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang with an article about the RECSYR mission:

• Moorings prepped with explosives, for emergency departure.

• Blackened out small boat headed for the ship, turned around when engaged with shock/stun grenades.

• Rocket impacts at the harbour, while loading chemical weapons.

• Chemicals leaking from the containers onboard the ship.

Article in Norwegian, with new pictures

Znuddel (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130928134234/http://news.yahoo.com/bumpy-road-destruction-syria-chemical-weapons-220840276.html to http://news.yahoo.com/bumpy-road-destruction-syria-chemical-weapons-220840276.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130923000753/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Syria-hands-over-remaining-chemical-arms-inventory-to-watchdog/articleshow/22861749.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Syria-hands-over-remaining-chemical-arms-inventory-to-watchdog/articleshow/22861749.cms
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131020181433/http://world.time.com/2013/09/27/syrian-chemical-arms-inspections-could-begin-soon/ to http://world.time.com/2013/09/27/syrian-chemical-arms-inspections-could-begin-soon/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131217222259/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=227093088 to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=227093088
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029194227/http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/Security-a-concern-for-weapons-inspectors-in-Syria-4902649.php to http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/Security-a-concern-for-weapons-inspectors-in-Syria-4902649.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131203003350/http://www.stripes.com/us-offering-to-destroy-syria-chemical-weapons-aboard-us-ship-at-sea-1.254948 to http://www.stripes.com/us-offering-to-destroy-syria-chemical-weapons-aboard-us-ship-at-sea-1.254948
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140306100634/http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/Syria-disarmament-chief-June-deadline-feasible-5286894.php to http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/Syria-disarmament-chief-June-deadline-feasible-5286894.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029183837/http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/227694761.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/227694761.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/chemical-weapons-watchdog-says-syria-declared-41-facilities-with-1300-tons-of-chemicals/2013/10/28/96e9db62-4030-11e3-b028-de922d7a3f47_story.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Destruction of Syria's 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/20140706144343/http://www.channelnewsasia.com:80/news/world/transfer-of-syrian/1230220.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/transfer-of-syrian/1230220.html

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) 19:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Destruction of Syria's 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/20131024123651/https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/about-the-convention/ to http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/about-the-convention/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/transfer-of-syrian/1230220.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)