Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 8

Faked Evidence

In the last days of August 2007 news agencies reported that a key witness, Ulrich Lumpert has confessed under oath that he has supplied a timer which apparently has been planted as evidence on the Lockerbie site. He also admitted having lied to the court.91.92.179.156 17:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this has already been reported also on Wikipedia - see, for example, Ulrich Lumpert.Phase4 22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How many more sources?

A "more sources" tag has been added to the article today by HisSpaceResearch. By my calculations, the Pan Am Flight 103 article already has:

• 46 inline references;
• 52 sources;
• 6 further reading suggestions; and,
• 15 external links.

That's apart from the 3 sub-articles:

• Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
• Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial
• Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103

with all their additional references and sources. HisSpaceResearch should explain here why "more sources" are required. Meantime, I'm removing the tag.Phase4 15:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Article misleads readers

This article as it stands now, still suggests to reader that Gadhafi's Libya did it. This is factually proven wrong!

The EU is now in posession of a photocopy of the formal "letter or marque and reprise" signed by the Islamic Republic of Iran tasking the palestinian "Black September" organization with avenging the 290 dead of the iranian civilian Airbus that was downed by the US Navy warship Vincennes. (Iran was legal to do so, based on the retaliatory articles of 1928's International Treaty on Aerial Warfare, since USA refused to admit responsibility and pay compenations for the pilgrim Airbus at the time.)

Anyhow, the lot of Lockerbie trial money paid by Libya under duress has since been returned to Gadhafi via the bulgarian nurse liberation deal and the imprisoned libyan agents will be released before 2008.

Therefore the article is wrong to present its readers with a "Libya did it" message. Libya was framed because it was a relatively weak military state, while Iran is a big army country and also Khomeini had solid legal basis to blow up the Pan-Am 747 in exchange for their Airbus, so the west couldn't formally accuse them. 81.0.68.145 22:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If indeed the EU does hold a photocopy of a letter saying that Iran ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, then no doubt the mainstream European media will soon tell us all about it. Meantime, a Libyan Megrahi remains in prison convicted of the bombing. Megrahi's conviction must first be overturned in the Court of Criminal Appeal before Libya can be exonerated, and Iran (or even apartheid South Africa - see South Africa luggage swap theory) can be prosecuted.Phase4 13:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of factual information. Until we know for a fact that the original explanation is wrong, we cannot insert a re-write based on a letter that may not even exist. Even if this letter does exist however, it does not guarantee that PA103 was downed by an Iranian terrorist. (Sk8er boi7000 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

Contradiction

The word "contradiction" may be too strong; "inconsistent" is closer. The section on the "Helsinki warning" says that a number of people allegedly changed their bookings. The section on the "Missed flight" people says that specific people changed their bookings on the "rumor" that there had been an advance warning -- the warning the previous section told us existed (and was presumably available to intelligence personnel). So maybe the rumor is more about the changed bookings, which may be impossible to confirm, than the warning. Either way it sounds like we aren't reading our own article. --Dhartung | Talk 12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading to read: People who didn't travel. This, I hope, resolves Dhartung's perceived dichotomy between "Missed flight" and "Helsinki warning".Phase4 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It requires references/source section cleanup. Looks like a mess to me at the moment. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the mess a bit by formatting and referencing.Phase4 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Contradiction

This article lists the number of survivors of the bombing as 0, but the article on the 7/7 London bombings states that one of those killed was a survivor of the Lockerbie bomb. Does anyone have a source that can confirm one way or the other? Link follows: [[1]]. 212.49.210.37 15:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There were no survivors among the 259 passengers and crew of Pan Am Flight 103. Eleven people were killed in the town of Lockerbie by falling wreckage of the aircraft. I have edited the 7/7 London bombings article to clarify the point, as follows:

• Helen Jones, 28, a Scottish (London-based) accountant, who had previously escaped death in 1988 when wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 crashed upon Lockerbie. Her family, from Annan, Dumfries and Galloway, said: "Helen will live on in the hearts of her family and her many, many friends".

Thanks for identifying this 'contradiction'.Phase4 16:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:PA103cockpit4.jpg

I have filed a deletion request for the image on Commons, as absolutely no source is given. The arguments by Phase4 for keeping the image are nulled UNLESS he can come up with a source for the image and (if it is copyrighted, and it likely is) re-upload the image to EN according to the proper copyright. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is all conspiratorial stuff. I have disputed your nomination for deletion.Phase4 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "This is all conspiratorial stuff." ? The image doesn't have a source, and unsourced images go. Anyway, the first edit, actually, was to prevent a duplication of the same image twice ([2]). The image may be reuploaded to EN (With a source, preferably) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So how do you explain your other three edits to the article on 25 November 2007?Phase4 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the other three:

• [3] was a change from "People who didn't travel" to "People who did not travel on Pan Am Flight 103" - We use formal English on Wikipedia, and contractions are casual English.
• [4] - The phrase "The alleged cancellation of tickets by high-profile passengers later fuelled rumours that intelligence agencies had advance warning of the bombing." has no source. You need to have a source in order for the statement to stay. What news agencies reported on this? Remember Wikipedia:Cite your sources WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• [5] - A UN official died on the flight, so the flight is added to Category:UN - This is the same reason for why the UN category was added to Swissair Flight 111

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Good explanations: I'm impressed.Phase4 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, once the PA103cockpit4.jpg is reuploaded, we can have PA103cockpit4.png as the first image and PA103cockpit4.jpg as the second (the "investigators combing wreck" pic) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nationalities of passengers and crew

What were the nationalities of the passengers and crew of the PA103 crash? WhisperToMe 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read somewhere that 189 of the victims were American citizens. The article says that the total of 270 victims came from 21 countries: names and addresses are recorded here.Phase4 12:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I found nationalities here! http://db.mipt.org/documents/Cases/91-CR-645_Indictment.pdf Thank you, as I can stated that X was a resident of Y :) WhisperToMe 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) I also found: http://www.panamair.org/accidents/lockerbievictims.htm - I will use them to make a nationality table (like Aeroperu's) WhisperToMe 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon 67.186.123.200 has edited the 'Nationalities' section incorrectly showing a number of Russian nationals to have been among the passengers and crew of PA103. I've reverted the edit.PJHaseldine (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was in Lockerbie in the Remembrance Room where a book with all casualties names is displayed. I saw 4 names from Republic of Ireland but this article shows only 3. If I correct this the total number will change. Can someone verify _exact_ number of casualties with their _exact_ country of origin?

thanks Bk86a (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pan Am's passenger list (http://www.panamair.org/accidents/lockerbievictims.htm) shows 3 Irish fatalities:

1. Bridget Concannon;
2. Thomas Concannon; and,
3. Peter Dix.

I suspect that the Concannon's 16 year-old son Sean, who Pan Am said was British because he was born in England, had dual nationality British/Irish. If this is the case, there is no need to amend the nationality table since the number of Irish fatalities was in fact three.PJHaseldine (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Phase1 = Phase2 = Phase4 = PJHaseldine = Patrick Haseldine

Please be advised that Phase4 is an alias of Lockerbie conspiracy theorist Patrick Haseldine. Any edits by this user relating to Lockerbie should be examined closely for WP:POV. See talk:Patrick Haseldine for details of this deception. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Anyone think this article is ready for a FAC? Or near it? --Golbez (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, definitely not without a significant amount of work. GA might be more achievable right now, but will still require a fair amount of cleanup work, particularly with regard to citations and conjecture vs fact. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the "Explosion" paragraph

Having delayed (read: forgotten) my little revision to the "explosion" paragraph of the article for a bit, I finally got around to it. I realise that without the referenced book, it's not quite right for me to have left the sources in the text. However, since I'm not aware of any other sources for these specifics, I've left them in. All that's been done is basically a quick edit of things that simply did not make any sense to anyone in the aviation industry. At any rate, comments and suggestions are of course very welcome. TerminusEst (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Feeder flight PA103A

The latest three edits by anon IP 71.232.115.111 imply that the Clipper Maid of the Seas Jumbo jet originated at Frankfurt International Airport. This is incorrect, as the following extract from the article's 'Flight Plan' section explains:

The first leg of Pan Am Flight 103's journey began as the Boeing 727 feeder flight, PA103A, from Frankfurt International Airport, West Germany to London Heathrow. Forty-seven of the 89 passengers on PA103A transferred at Heathrow to the Boeing 747 flight PA103 which was scheduled to fly to JFK. A Boeing 727 would have been used for the final leg of the journey from JFK to Detroit.

I have therefore reverted those three edits to the last version by Socrates2008.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The same anon IP has now edited the flight infobox to record that Pan Am Flight 103 originated at Frankfurt (as PA103A) with a 'stopover' at Heathrow and a 'destination' of JFK. If this edit is to stand, surely consistency requires that JFK should also be described as a 'stopover' since the final leg of the journey to Detroit would have been the actual 'destination'. Or, am I being pedantic?PJHaseldine (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's edit by Abarzelay has compounded the error initiated by 71.232.115.111 above. On December 21, 1988 the Boeing 747 Clipper Maid of the Seas arrived at Heathrow at noon from San Francisco - not from Frankfurt, as Abarzelay wrongly edited. As stated above, it was a Boeing 727 that was used as the feeder flight PA103A from Frankfurt to Heathrow. Thus, PA103 (Clipper Maid of the Seas) originated at Heathrow and its destination was JFK. I am therefore reverting Abarzelay's edit, and correcting the crash infobox accordingly.PJHaseldine (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see some references - that will end the speculation/edit war very quickly. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The most authoritative reference I can find is the Air Accidents Investigation Branch Report- Section 1.1 (History of the Flight).PJHaseldine (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly authoritative - are you going to add it to the citations? Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The AAIB report already features as №9 on the list of references. I invite you to convert it into an inline citation, if you think that is appropriate.PJHaseldine (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Lockerbie bombing: online memorial

To avoid the criticism by User:Lihaas (that the online memorial link conflicts with WP:EL) I have converted it into an inline citation, to which WP:EL does not apply.

Lihaas then says that the link conflicts with WP:NOTMEMORIAL the applicable part of which states: Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.

I disagree with the interpretation put on WP:NOTMEMORIAL by Lihaas. The Pan Am Flight 103 article is not the Memorial to the 270 people who lost their lives in the bombing: the referenced link is the online memorial, and it should stay in.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Not sure how did you add it into a reference for a non-notable subject. But taking it out to try and get away with a rule can simply bring another guideline, ie- WP:RS. This new format uses the "external links" as a resource, yet it doesn't serve as an encyclopedic reference to the context, as the other sources should. (now they don't have sourced either and that's a deficiency)

With external links it must be a "unique resourse" and not a web log. (of which is it not an article with a unique resource) It must also have an "authoritative" source.

The main memorials are established by global entities with widely held, if not approval, at least authority. The online memorial is doesn't appear as more than a fringe source.

You still haven't said why you think it should stay. Simple because it not an online memorial? Remember, the burden of proof lies on who is adding removed material.

Also, let's get consensus before adding back and forth. Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This section of the article is concerned with memorials to the 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing. Most of these memorials are monuments, plaques and books of remembrance. Some have inline citations and others have not, which is presumably why User:Lihaas has tagged the section as "missing citations". There is one "online memorial" which has an inline citation Remembering Lockerbie but which Lihaas has removed from the article, saying initially that it conflicted with the guideline WP:NOTMEMORIAL and now saying it is "a reference for a non-notable subject". Those for and against reinserting the text and citation to the online memorial ("A recently-created online memorial is dedicated to the 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing.") are invited to express their views below.---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reinsert Clearly belongs in the memorials section of Pan Am Flight 103.PJHaseldine (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep out Yep, notable memorials. not fringe groups. The ones mentioned are sanctioned by some official representative. Wikipedia can't start listing everyone's memorials and web logs or it would simply keep mounting. As for the rest of the above, I don't know who are you conversing with, I say myself in the 3rd person, so I don't think there is much to respond to. Lihaas (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Reservations section

I've moved this to "victims" (since they were almost-victims) and shortened it considerably. When some noteable person missed the flight we should mention it, but it's not really that important how and why. Also, we don't need to include the story of any (non-noteable) person who was not on this flight. The Indian guy was important, though, since there was a breach of security regulations. I also plainly deleted all people who were listed as "rumored" to be on the flight, without sources being given. Averell (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any point in including those who didn't take the flight as "Victims" (whether notable or not). In my view, the Flight reservations section should either be moved much lower down the article or be deleted.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, fell free to move it back down again. It's not really that important, it just seemed logical to me. Averell (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely chronologically `Reservations' should be after `Flight Plan' and before `Explosion'. I don't see why it couldn't go there with ALL the irrelevant material removed. If there are any notable facts they should be robust enough to fit at this more prominent location. But it does not seem to fit easily between `U.S. Intelligence officers' and `Lockerbie residents'? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the current version can remain, however I don't think that it belongs in a prominent location (in spite of the chronological order). Averell (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it certainly has no bearing whatsoever on why or how the plane was destroyed, unless there was evidence that last minute cancellations demonstrated a trail of knowledge and thus guilt. There appears to be none. If it can't be made to fit chronologically, I tend to agree with PJHaseldine that this section belongs much lower down. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise solution, I've reduced the 'Flight reservations' section to Jaswant Basuta only as Lockerbie's '271st victim' and have amended and made an addition to the '270 victims' section (Bernt Carlsson). I'm self-reverting my edit 'as per ban', and should be grateful if an editor would revert my reversion.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to recap. Averell deleted a large part of the 'Flight reservations' section before moving it to the 'Victims' section. Amongst those no longer mentioned were the South African delegation headed by Pik Botha, who had been booked but did not travel on the flight, and arguably PA103's most prominent victim UN Commissioner for Namibia Bernt Carlsson.

The edit I proposed above seeks to change the 'Victims' section heading to '270 victims'; to include a mention of Bernt Carlsson; and to limit the already much-reduced 'Flight reservations' section to just Jaswant Basuta (new sub-heading '271st victim'). I am repeating this edit (and self-reverting it because of my topic ban) and should be grateful if an editor would now revert my reversion so that the amendment may stand.---PJHaseldine (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ulster Defence League

The article says that the Ulster Defence League made a claim of responsibility. Is this another name for the Ulster Defence Association, or is it another organisation? I have never heard of UDL. Andrimner (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a source for this statement? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Ulster Defence League" claim is from a CIA document, which is linked to from the references at the end of the "Claims of responsibility" section. Salmanazar (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Injuries

I am well aware of the fact that all of the 259 people on the plane were killed, and that a further 11 on the ground died, but were there any injuries to people on the ground? Sir Stanley (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming Convention

I apologise in advance if this has been bored/nit picked/scrutinized (and obviously failed) in previous Archive discussions but basically who chooses the name of these pages?

Until I came to this article, I was not even aware of the call sign of the plane involved in the Lockerbie Bombing.

The creator of this page was an unregistered user on IP 212.185.233.119 based in Dortmund, Germany back in 2003. That person chose to call this page Pan Am Flight 103 where as most of the English-speaking world would call it the Lockerbie Bombing.

A lot of stuff on WP seems to go on precedence. I draw you attentions to the never ending row after an Australian user started the article on Londonderry and called it Derry or that Football is known as Association Football.

This means that changes are almost impossible after they have been laid down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.219.94 (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The general rules for names are laid out in the naming conventions. Names usually only changed after discussion and consensus on the talk page. For this article, the name conforms the naming conventions of the Aviation Project - aviation accidents use the flight number. Furthermore, Lockerbie Bombing is a redirect to this article. Averell (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Bombers Release

"UK's weak minded attempt at saying there are people who care. "

Should this be removed? As much as I agree with it doesn't seem to sit in with NPOV. Stupidstudent (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Too late seems to have been fixed Stupidstudent (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well whoever added it clearly has no idea. The vast majority of the victims families and the government here believe al Megrahi was innocent, and believe it was the correct thing to do. The U.S is being very hostile for no reason. It's our justice system, they have no right to intervene. 92.10.106.21 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the majority of victims on that flight were U.S. citizens and that the airline (Pan Am) was a U.S. airline, the family members of the victims and Americans in general have a right to have concern about the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a man who murdered hundreds of innocent people (mostly American). The U.S. is not being hostile, the government of Scotland and the United Kingdom are. I will be watching this article to ensure that it adheres to NPOV and that anti-U.S. bias is not added or added in with weasel words. Aurora30 (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if Clinton was as good as delivering IRA terrorists to the UK instead of giving them sanctuary, then we could listen to her bleatings more seriously. --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The bomber did not maintain his inocence he droped his apeal prior to his release. Stupidstudent (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not because he admits guilt, but because he won't live to see it through. He still intends to release his defence evidence. Fribbler (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

The lead should at least mention the fact that very few people believe the official version--86.15.153.179 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

deadliest terrorist attack against the United States?

Article states "Since 180 of the victims were American, the bombing stood as the deadliest terrorist attack against the United States until the September 11, 2001 attacks."

I believe that this is incorrect.

On October 23, 1983, 241 American servicemen were killed in the Beirut barracks bombing.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing --Cstrabone (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Take it out. --John (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed and updated. --Cstrabone (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This happened in 1988, making "deadliest terrorist attack against the United States until the September 11, 2001 attacks" correct, cause Lockerbie happened between Beirut and 9/11?!? Surely?! I'll revert the change. SGGH ^ping! 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I won't re-add it as it seems unencyclopaedic trivia, however it is correct. SGGH ^ping! 21:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your logic is flawed. It was not the deadliest terrorist attack against the United States until the September 11, 2001. If the bombing in Beirut stood as the deadliest terrorist attack against the United States until the September 11, 2001 attacks, then this incident did not supersede it. I think the flaw is in the language. It would be proper to characterize the Pam Am 103 incident as the third most deadly attack on Americans after 9/11 and Beirut.--Cstrabone (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There's some ambiguity about Beirut, simply because it was an attack on a military target, which normally does not fall into the domain of "terrorism"... particularly since there was a war going in in Lebanon at the time. Hairhorn (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I am not logged in, but I need to point out that the Oklahoma City bombing preceded 9/11. Since the OKC bombing was domestic terrorism, I think it would be appropriate to insert the word "international" before "terrorist attack" in the present sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.153.54 (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that Pan Am 103 killed more Americans than Oklahoma City.... Hairhorn (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To sort this out I took the script from the Pan Am article and inserted it thus Until the September 11, 2001 attacks, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 with 180 US victims, was the second deadliest terrorist attack against the United States and remains the largest terrorist attack on British soil to this day.[6] ....hope this helps. --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

On reading it later I thought just maybe a little tweak to say ...with the loss of 180 US lives... --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I took it out again. Here's why; it seems to me the second biggest terrorist attack isn't very notable for the article, unless it can be shown that multiple reliable sources regard it as being important. And the "...attack on British soil..." is just plain wrong; the bomb went off at thirty-something thousand feet above any kind of soil. --John (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you better take it out of the Pam Am article too for the sake of consistency. --Cyber Fox (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible repetition

Please tell me if I am wrong but are we not in danger of repeating edits which are already prevalent on the Megrahi article. Is this article not supposed to be about the flight itself and not the aftermath? Someone please confer...thank you. --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

FBI director Robert Mueller's response to Megrahi's early release

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6076025/Lockerbie-bomber-Letter-from-FBI-director-Robert-Mueller.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.8.33 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Stratfor's analysis

The intelligence-oriented news source Stratfor did a pretty good analysis yesterday of the Lockerbie incident which we could use in the article. They go into a detailed discussion about the timers and give reasons why the theories about it being done by other than Libya are unlikely. I'm new to this article but it may be useful to the regular editors. See Libya: A Hero's Welcome Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet another US publication house attempting to put their own spin on events intermingled with the actual facts. Try reading the official court papers and not be taken in by such recycled theories. --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an analysis piece; of course it presents their own opinion after going through the facts. The point is they're pretty well-regarded among those who follow international news, and their opinion is notable. I've also read reports that argue the opposite, such as a translation of Pierre Pean's Manipulations Africaines. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Depictions in media

Can anyone think of an encyclopedic purpose for keeping this section? If not, I propose to remove it entirely. --John (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you not think that it is useful having such information for the reader? Maybe reorganised better. --Cyber Fox (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It also fails WP:N and WP:V. --John (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

External links

Let's remember that links need to contain info we could add to the article. Any that do not should not be added as they will be removed. --John (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone kept taking out the link to the Boycott Scotland website, while leaving the pro-Megrahi links in. If "Boycott Scotland" doesn't belong, then neither do websites advocating Megrahi's innocence or conspiracy theories. Equal Progress (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Such websites are generally considered innapropriate and similar "boycott insert country here" links have been removed from other articles. By all means mention such a site was made but you don't need to directly link to it, linking to a source that mentions it complies with WP policy. Removing other links in response to the removal of your prefered link is inappropriate behaviour. Wayne (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT is also worth looking at. --John (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have included an overwhelming amount of websites devoted to either conspiracy theories or devoted to the notion that Al Megrahi is innocent. You have none that oppose this view at all, so the list of links is extremely one-sided. In accordance with WP policy:

"Avoid undue weight on particular points of view

On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight."

Will you now add comments to these links, as is suggested according to WP policy, informing readers of the point of view of these websites? Because certainly no one looking at this could claim it was in any way "neutral", since you have removed the sole dissenting link to an alternative point of view.The Ghost Army (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

One should avoid: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. trumps that argument. The links are only there to provide access to material we could use to improve the article. Once that criterion is met, the sort of argument you are making could come into play. As this site doesn't meet that criterion, that's the end of it. Of course, if a consensus decided this link met EL, I would have no objection. I don't think we do have that though. --John (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The links are, in total, reflective of only one side of the argument and only one opinion. If this is the purpose of WP, to reflect certain editors political beliefs, why have a guideline that states something quite to the contrary? The links included with this article clearly do not meet the guideline, so it's your duty to "Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." Certainly adding these comments in no way will hinder you from gaining the access you need to these sites to improve the article, will they? At least have the courtesy to inform readers that these links are reflective of the "undue weight" that WP cautions against. That is only fair.The Ghost Army (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to suggest such comments here for us to agree on, I have no problem with that. --John (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The links to pro-conspiracy and pro-Megrahi websites are totally inappropriate here. I will keep removing such additions as they are in clear violation of WP policy no matter how many times the anon keeps adding them back in. They don't add to the article and the fact that opposing views are removed by the pro-Megrahi crowd is evidence that we should avoid such external links. Equal Progress (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

@equalprogress, I suggest you read the section below this before you remove so-called pro conspiracy links CloudSurferUK

John in violation of WP:EL

I also suggest to User:John to carefully review WP:EL and WP:NPOV. We do not condone advertising here at WP. Thanks much. Equal Progress (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:John, who is an admin, continues to violation WP:EL without first discussing the issue. There is opposition to including links to pro-conspiracy websites, and he should refrain from including them when there is no consensus. Equal Progress (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I second this.--Carriden (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• The links haven't been part of the article since the start of the discussion, so this seems more or less resolved. I haven't looked at the external websites, but from their names alone "lockerbietruth.com" and "justiceforlockerbie.com" I'd rather see an explicit rationale for including them. They don't violate WP:EL per se, but my first instinct based only on the domain names would be that they are non-neutral, and need a strong case why they pass either WP:EL#YES 3 or WP:EL#MAYBE 4.
  Amalthea 11:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Justice for Lockerbie link keeps being removed despite it not being a pro-megrahi or conspiracy site, if you bother to read it it actually doesnt condone conspiracies. It does contains factual information, news and official reports that dont exists in the article. It is about the truth of the Lockerbie Disaster and does not support a conspiracy and actually states that Megrahi may be innocent or guilty, its up to the individual user to decide. For this reason the link is relevant to the article. The site is about finding the real facts about the disaster only. Something supported by many of the victims families. The Boycott scotland linking was taking out rightly as it was a pathic US based response from one person to create a political motive to the article and contained no information that can be stated as fact regarding PA103. CloudSurferUK

It is clearly a non-neutral and biased website (which you even admit condones conspiracies) as anyone can tell from a casual perusal of the site. In addition, it is not a notable website and does not conform to WP:EL, which I strongly suggest you read. It doesn't belong in this article and there is no consensus for its inclusion. Equal Progress (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying providing factual information, factual and official reports is not relevant and non-neutral? Sorry that should have read "does not condone conpsiracies". There is not a single hint of a conspiracy theory on the site and everything issued on the site is based on evidence, evidence that isnt included in the WP articles. That is why it is relevant to the article. Are you ssaying WP users dont have the right to facts EQUALPROGRESS?

Your claims about the website being "non-neutral" don't have any basis in fact. It's obviously a pro-conspiracy website. It's also an utterly non-notable conspiracy website. Read WP:EL again very carefully. Equal Progress (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you please point out the conspiracy then? Are you american by chance equalprogress? A web site that deals only with fact can only be neutral. and your claims of being non-notable are simply petty given that a major UK TV channel has commisioned the web site owners to create a documentary based on the facts of the lockerbie case and the people involved have a direct connection to the disaster. I suggest you leave your room for a bit and stop forcing the world according to equalprogress. Wikipedia users have the right to all information not just the stuff you like mate. I have also just found out you are the man behind boycott scotland, which has proved to be highly humorous in the UK (do you really think the US will forgo its whiskey supply?), that however does add extreme bias on your part for articles and websites. I suggest you are not even qualified to decide on this matter because of that obvious bias.

I suggest you stop making blanket accusations and carefully review no personal attacks. You should also carefully review WP:EL and WP:N, which you clearly have not done. Equal Progress (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasnt a personal attack it was a statment of your clear bias against the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudSurferUK (talk • contribs) 09:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I urge you to carefully review WP:NPA, WP:EL, and WP:N. Equal Progress (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And again I urge you to comprehend the following, Justice for Lockerbie is backed by a Major UK TV channel (notability!), Justice for Lockerbie deals solely with facts (neutrality!), Justice for Lockerbie offers official reports from official sources, UK, US and Other Foreign States that are relevant to and not included in WP Article (Relevance!)

What I will not be drawn into is the Link/Delete game you like to play therefore I will gracefully concede and not add the link again. However You are doing WP a disservice purely for biased reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudSurferUK (talk • contribs) 10:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)