Talk:The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie

message: Vincecan confidently asserted:
:"The film was ultimately financed by the Libyan government as an effort to deflect criticism for its role in directing the sabotage of PA 103."
That assertion can only be allowed to stand if there is some evidence – no matter how tenuous – to back it up. Let's be hearing from you, Vincecan!Phase4 20:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: olol, Tiny Rowland is obviously a Libyan agent. LamontCranston 13:11, 09 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vincecan's assertion

message: To say that there is an "official" account is kind of a ridiculous notion, and an obvious attempt to marginalize a well-reported story.  The Lockerbie bombing is well-covered by the press -- there are literally thousands of mainstream newspaper articles that describe the bombing and who is responsible.  These are not part of any "official" arm of any US, UK or any other government report, and to suggest that there is one "official" account is to minimalize the factual account in an attempt to artificially prop-up the conspiracy theory.  That violates the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Giovanni33. The mainstream media were following the line fed to them by the US/British governments, see investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial. It is therefore better described as an "official" account.Phase4 10:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The term, "official account" far from being a "ridicoulous notion" is standard practice. Its also neutral, precise, and thus verifiable To change this to "conventional" adds in a POV. The press reports the official story. Its officials who determine the facts for consuption and publication, and its the official account that gets reported on by the mainstream press. The mainstream press are lapdogs for the official version. But, its the offical version that is the issue here, not some pov notion about what is "conventional" or not. That is the vague notion that is best officially left out. heheGiovanni33 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To assume that the mainstream press are "lapdogs" for the "Guvment" is a naive notion unsupported by reality, and reflects a complete misunderstanding of the role of journalism in U.S. culture.  Maybe it's that way in your home country, but in the U.S. journalists are immediately suspicious of government explanations, thrive on conflict, and would give their left testicle to break a story that would embarass an Administration spokesman.  Here we give Pulitzers to newspeople who uncover those kinds of stories, and fire and publicly humiliate Toadies who are lazy enough to mimic the Government line.  You are profoundly misled.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  02:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing could be futher from the truth. IN theory, yes, that would be great, but in practice we have lapdogs, and cheerleaders for the govt. and conformity ot established power and the ruling class. I suggest you read Chomsky's "Manufacturing  Consent,", and Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media for an intro to a study of this question. Since I'm an educator, here is an exerpt from the book for you to read for free:  When you are done with that I have a dozen other works so you can open your eyes to the reality of the so-called "watch dog" "independant" journalism in the US. Until then profoundly mislead, indeed you are.Giovanni33 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have a reference that says the official account is scientifically established?Giovanni33 06:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now edited the text saying that "the film disputes the conclusions reached by the official investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103". Problem solved?Phase4 10:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Account

message: The image :Image:ThomasThurman.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:TinyRowland.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:ThomasThurman.jpg

message: There are interesting conspiracy theories on the net regarding the sudden death of Allan Francovich, one year after the film was shown by Channel 4. He died in Houston airport and was only was 56.
--Rolec Dubbing (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The death of the filmmaker 

message: The article introduction is wrong about the critical reception. the film was a success when it was shown and won the best documentary award at Edinburgh Film Festival.
--Wool Bridge (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Reception