Talk:Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons/Archive 1

Links

[1][2][3][4]*[5]*[6]*[7][8][9](Lihaas (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Retitle 'Agreement to eliminate Syrian chemical weapons'

The U.S.-Russia agreement is the first step in a process that is better described in my proposed title. For example, major discussions are taking place on how to word the UN Security Council statement on Syrian chemical weapons. That is related to the Framework but not the same thing. What does any one think? Alternative titles? I wonder whether '2013 Agreement to eliminate Syrian chemical weapons' is better?Haberstr (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the proper name of the agreement, like the name of a treaty. If a larger process develops, perhaps this article's scope could be increased, and the current content could form a section of the new article. For the moment I recommend sticking with the proper name. Jehochman ^Talk 12:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not _that_ big of a deal, but the agreement actually is part of a larger process, with a widely reported background story which I've begun to describe, with a Security Council now involved (and its involvement heavily covered in the media)[10], and with presumably complex and contentious implementation and verification processes.Haberstr (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current page title is fine by me, the UN's discussions on the Framework as well as Syrian compliance or noncompliance can certainly belong here. If and when there's a passed UN resolution that supersedes this framework, we'll worry about what to do with this page at that point. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that the 2013 agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons is a complex multi-stage process that the Framework just initiated. That framework is the first and most critical element of that process. Here is a look at the stages yet to be completed:

"After action by the 41-member executive council of the OPCW, a Security Council resolution will be needed to override some provisions of the international Chemical Weapons Convention to allow an effort to find, transport and dismantle chemical arms in the middle of a civil war.

"The chemical arms agency's decision must be approved by a simple majority of council members, though agreement is almost always reached through a consensus, which is expected in Syria's case. The council meets behind closed doors, but may be open to observer countries that are not yet members. Syria is not yet a full member.

"As soon as the OPCW decision is made, the full UN Security Council will begin negotiations on a resolution intended to support the OPCW Executive Council's decision. The five permanent UN Security Council members have been negotiating for several days on a draft resolution.[11].Haberstr (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to move it. And this is fhthe official title.(Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

I don't understand how you can call it the official name when the UN article you cite[12] doesn't refer to the process by what you say is the 'official name'.Haberstr (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The resolutions official wording reads : "Welcoming the Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons ..."(Lihaas (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

No one questions that the title of the Russia-US agreement was "Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons." That is not the name for the process by which Syria will/may rid itself of chemical weapons. I thought we had agreed that this article would be about that process and not about the first agreement reached in that process. Of course, if you'd like to write a short Wikipedia entry on the Framework itself, no problem.Haberstr (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP user deleting sourced text

This removal: [13] was done under the edit summary "NPOV changes, as well as some light English fixes". To me this looks like removal of sourced text. Unless the source is not reliable (Reuters) or a valid justification is given I suggest it should be put back as it was. Hoverfish Talk 22:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV *is* a valid justification for removal. I agree with the remover that the removal makes the text more NPOV. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hoverfish and have reverted. I am not sure what the NPOV/POV argument is. If Rolf H Nelson could enlighten, that would be helpful.Haberstr (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To assume good faith and answer your question: Imputing unflattering motives for why you believe they're lying to the sources you disagree with is POV, especially when you're synthesizing the motive yourself rather than citing a reliable source that is imputing the motive. For example, men have landed on the Moon, and if the New York Times separately reports that NASA makes millions of dollars selling Moon rocks, you can't say "NASA, which makes millions of dollars selling Moon rocks,(cite nyt) claims that it has landed men on the Moon", unless the NYT itself claims there's an actual connection. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a relevant discussion meanwhile taking place in Talk:Ghouta chemical attacks, I must admit that Rolf h nelson is correct in that IF we mention the aid given to the rebels, then in order to keep NPOV in this article, we HAVE to also mention that Russia and Iran are the allies of the Syrian government. Otherwise the article is biased. The reason I didn't revert and add the other side, is that I am not sure how far we should explain here. In the Ghouta attacks it is very relevant, but here the topic is only the framework of the elimination. However since we do have a "background" section, the information about allies of the two sides seems relevant to the topic of that section. The question is do we mention both sides, or none? Only mentioning the allies of the one side is against Neutral Point Of View. Hoverfish Talk 12:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not mention Russia, "a key ally of Syria," according to numerous RS? I see no need to mention Iran ... it is not involved in the CW elimination process. In the same way, many other allies of the rebels, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, are also not involved in the CW elimination process and do not need to be mentioned.Haberstr (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I moved the mention of aid to the rebels away from the first sentence, where it doesn't really belong, closer and in better balance with the mention of the other side's allies. I think this way bias is avoided, while the reader finds both statements in the section. Also I changed "aid" to "support", to be more in agreement with the citation given. The citation however does not cover France, whose involvement in the whole story is different from that of the US. Hoverfish Talk 18:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you've done.Haberstr (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Framework is misleading as title, so I _really_ wanna change title or make new article

Now that I more fully understand the Framework, I understand that it is a preliminary _request_ directed toward the OPCW. It will not control what the OPCW decides to do. For example, the OPCW will control the timetable, and if the Framework's 'mid-2014' seems unworkable, then OPCW will vote and possibly give the elimination process more time. Much of my new understanding comes from CW expert Jean Pascal Zanders.[14]

But chemical weapons expert Jean Pascal Zanders said that timetable is irrelevant because decision-making now passes to the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. "The Executive Council has sovereign decision-making, and the US and Russia just have one vote each among the 41 members, so I wouldn't be surprised if we don't have consensus decision-making," Zanders said.

Rather than insert Zanders' clarification regarding the process into the 'Framework' article, it might be better to put it into an article about the overall elimination process. That likely should be the present article, clarified regarding the Framework's relationship to the overall process. But if people think we should have two separate articles, one on the Framework and the second on the CW elimination process, that's fine with me too.Haberstr (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation subsection impossibly confusing, so delete some of the 'Sept. 20' stuff

It appears that Syria's 'initial submission' on September 20 for no NPOV reason was made a big deal of by an unduly skeptical and/or anti-Syrian and/or Western media, and so that pseudo-controversy has now confused this subsection. On the next day, September 21, which was the deadline, Syria's full submission met the OPCW requirements. Therefore, I think this section should be at most three sentences and should read like the non-story it is. Syria submitted an 'initial submission' (or whatever it was termed by the OPCW) and then submitted its 'full submission' on September 21, the deadline. And we shouldn't 'bury the lead'; i.e., meeting the deadline with the full submission on September 21 should be the lead.Haberstr (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The deadline was met; Wikipedia is not CNN and doesn't need every "what's happening now" detail. Incidentally, the structure of the article is not great. I can't immediately see how to make it better, but I find it unnecessarily unclear. Podiaebba (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article is not in fact about the Framework. It is about a process that the Framework initiated. The solution is to recognize that upfront in tandem with a name change. IMHO.Haberstr (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

This has been done. bd2412 T 15:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons → Agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons – As I've outlined above, the 'Framework' initiates but does not control a process that goes to the OPCW and Security Council. The OPCW can modify or entirely reject the Framework, if it so pleases. Similarly, the Security Council can do whatever it wants with the Framework's 'advice' on how to construct a resolution on enforcement of Syria's compliance with the agreement established by the OPCW. Finally, 'Agreement' is now much more frequently used than 'Framework' when the media refer to the chemical weapons elimination process/deal. Finally II, if anyone wants to make a Wikipedia limited only to the Framework, that is of course fine with me. See WP:UCN, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION, WP:PRECISE, and WP:CONCISE. Haberstr (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I assume that your above statement means that the notability of the proposed name has been established by RS. By all means, the title should describe the content. If this article covers what the Framework is/was sufficiently, I see no reason for a separate article just for this topic. Hoverfish Talk 15:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the Wikipedia way of doing 'notability' is, but 'agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons' (without quotation marks) has 130 million hits on Google, while 'framework to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons' has 2.5 million. In Google News, the numbers are 117,000 compared to 9,700.Haberstr (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With quotes, I get 106.000 Google results, and I see several notable sources using this phrase, including BBC News. Hoverfish Talk 09:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not Wikipedia guidelines. And this is the official name. Neither was there consensus for this mve(Lihaas (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

There certainly was consensus. You've returned 5 days after the move and made name change without discussion. You also don't understand that the name for the Russia-U.S. agreement is not the name for the process of eliminating chemical weapons from Syria. The latter has no official name. In addition, the link you cite proves my point, not yours.Haberstr (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, note, in the link[15] you cite as evidence for the contention that 'Framework ...' is the official name, the following in paragraph two: "the [Security] Council determined that the use of chemical weapons anywhere constituted a threat to international peace and security, and called for the full implementation of the 27 September decision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)." So, according to the UN, the name for the chemical elimination process is at best the 'decision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons'. In other words, there is no official name. The 'Framework' is not mentioned until the Guatemalan UN ambassador mentions it several pages down, and acknowledges it as a preliminary agreement.Haberstr (talk)

comment The main question seems to be what this article is about. The US-RU framework is an Agreement and thus it is called often an agreement, but there is not indication that the overall process aiming at the destruction of chemical weapons is what sources call the "agreement" as well. Maybe we should rename to: Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons? and report the political, validation and technical progress here? L.tak (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your suggested title is that it assumes the "Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons" will take place before it has happened. If they are eliminated, then we can change to title to something like what you propose. Anyway, I hope we find a better title than the one agreed on. I just don't know what that is. 'Agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons' is by far the most common way of referring to the overall process on Google.Haberstr (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest something that will obtain consensus instead of (now twice) moving the page prematurely (note it was you that stated in the template above your rationale: "The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached.")? Furthermore, also the Russian and US pages are referred to as "elimination of chemical weapons", while they have not finished yet… Another example of using the name of the goal as a page naming option can be found at Accession of Turkey to the European Union... L.tak (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This page can be about both the Framework and Resolution 2118, since it's essentially successive stages of the same basic agreement. If it gets too large, we can break out the old Framework, including reactions specific to the Framework, into small separate page. The media doesn't currently have a consistent name for this, so the proposed title is fine by me. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118 should redirect here or be a small article that links here; its text should be merged into here. Rolf H Nelson (talk)

suggestion 2 An temporary alternative might be to decide that this page is about the agreements regarding Syria's destruction and their implementation; and rephrase along those lines:

The Agreements to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons comprise three international agreements aimed at the elimination of Syria's chemical weapons and its capability to produce them. The adoption process started with the bilateral agreement between Russia and the United states called "eliminate Syria's chemical weapons", which was endorsed and supplemented by OPCW Executive Council Resolution "xxx", which was the basis for the UN Security Council Resolution xxx..

This avoids the akward "an agreement is a process" which we have now and which is unsourced and would allow for now to move the page to "Agreements to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons. Thoughts and altenratives are welcome! L.tak (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love getting "agreement is a process" out, though I was the author of that clumsy phrase.Haberstr (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd support moving to Agreements to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons and change the start of the article accordingly? The way it is now (saying it is aobut the security council agreement) makes it a fork of the article on the security council resolution; so that also cannot be a solution imho... L.tak (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there was no original consensus the OP cites himself with GOOGLEHITS and that is n ot a reason in discussions.

Secondly the official wording of the UNSC resolution cites this FRAMEWORK (READ the resolution in the link iprovided not the commentary/discussions), not the process,. This is about the framework agreed to by the US-Russia. The issue with the ghouta attacks is seperaate and covered there.

Further, this is titles as the process? no, its titled after the agreement,a nd the agreement is officialy known as the "Framework..." You cant make up titles!(Lihaas (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

tentatively agree The "framework" is probably too narrow a topic to stand the test of time as a viable article. The "agreement" or "agreements" likewise will be overtaken by events as the actual elimination proceeds. But for the time being all we have is an agreement and not actual "elimination." I suggest leaving the title as is for now and revisiting the matter in a few months. NPguy (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

"Russia has previously vetoed three resolutions attempting to sanction Syria,"

I am not much into UN sec council resolutions, so maybe someone else can clarify this. The above sentence is in the article but seems unsourced. Is it correct? Or did Russia threaten to veto proposed resolutions? Or was there an actual vote? L.tak (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there have been any votes, and I don't know how you count three if there were never any votes. You could probably say that Russia's veto threat blocked any resolution (provided that's what the sources say). NPguy (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources say that Russia has "vetoed" -- PressTV,[16] BBC,[17] Reuters,[18] and AP[19] -- three previous Sec Council resolutions sanctioning Syria. Pretty overwhelming RS on this matter.Haberstr (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; the media certainly describe it that way. Can you put the full text of the drafts in the external links? I think it would be great background information… L.tak (talk)!

Current media reporting of three past vetoes is not as persuasive as contemporaneous reporting of those vetoes, in July 2012, February 2012, and October 2011. I was mistaken. NPguy (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"an approval of the provisional application pending entry into force"

Can someone explain in plain English what the bold-highlighted text in the following means: "that is a detailed and accelerated plan for the elimination of Syria's chemical weapons and an approval of the provisional application pending entry into force." Then we/I can change the wording a little so the clause is more understandable.Haberstr (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, provisional application is the application of the convention before it formally is effective. Syria declared it would do so, but there is no provision in the chemical weapon convention for provisional application. Therefore in the declaration it was noted that no country had objected to the provisional application; and it thus was endorsed by the OPCW (see also here). L.tak (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've made some modifications for clarity's sake.Haberstr (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions section, one for Framework, another for UN Resolution?

It's inaccurate, I think, to mix the two. Most or all of the reaction stuff in the current 'Reactions' subsection was reaction to the Framework, the initial US-Russia agreement. There was also widespread reaction to passage of the UN Resolution, which we haven't put into the article yet. We might want to make 'Reactions to the Framework' a sub-subsection of the Framework subsection, or at least make it clear through one method or another that 'here' is reaction to the Framework and 'over here' is reaction to the UN Resolution.Haberstr (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an example where a reaction to the Framework was substantially different from the reaction to the Resolution? If not, I don't think mixing them in a single section is inaccurate, just as in an article about Avatar you wouldn't have different sections for "Reception of Avatar (Theatrical Release)" and "Reception of Avatar (DVD Release). Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]