Talk:Bernt Carlsson

message: Kindly see the talk page of Patrick Haseldine whose Lockerbie conspiracy theory this is presented here under the POV alias of Phase4.  04:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All POV text has been removed from the article.PJHaseldine (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Phase4 = Patrick Haseldine

message: Mr Haseldine, I consider you to have a conflict of interest issue over this article which concerns your conspiracy theory, and suggest therefore that you refrain from making further edits to it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was because of the potential for a perceived conflict of interest that I deliberately avoided editing the conspiracy theory section.PJHaseldine (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now aligned the conspiracy theory section with the text of the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: COI

message: Had UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, lived to see the signature of the New York Accords on 22 December 1988, he would have been appointed Special Representative of the Secretary-General, and would thus have overseen Namibia's transition to independence. Carlsson would not have stood for all the shenanigans that the South Africans got up to. For instance, he would not have authorised the deployment of SADF units and Koevoet against the alleged incursion of SWAPO "fighters" from Angola on 1 April 1989, as his replacement Martti Ahtisaari was persuaded to do by Margaret Thatcher and Pik Botha (see Missing diplomatic links and the Lockerbie tragedy).
The South Africans knew that Carlsson would not tolerate any interference with Namibia's progress towards independence. And it would have been an independence election with SWAPO achieving well over the 66.6% vote that was necessary for them to revise their "imposed" independence constitution!---PJHaseldine (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Namibia successfully transitioned to independence, with SWAPO the majority party, so the outcome would not have been any different.  Your assertions need reliable secondary sources, as they are only conjecture. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this? "In July 1989, Glenys Kinnock and Tessa Blackstone of the British Council of Churches visited Namibia and reported: 'There is a widespread feeling that too many concessions were made to South African personnel and preferences and that Martti Ahtisaari was not forceful enough in his dealings with the South Africans.'"---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no arguments when you add referenced, rather than self-published material.  In this particular case, I trust the discussion will be balanced with information about SWAPO shenanigans on 1 April? Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was really hoping to hear a bit more of a positive contribution from Socrates2008 to this discussion. For example, why does he not elaborate on what he means by SWAPO shenanigans on 1 April 1989?---PJHaseldine (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Special Representative of the Secretary-General

message: As noted on the conflict of interest noticeboard, Deon Steyn made the following POV edit to this article on 5 March 2009: "However, Haseldine never explained how Carlsson's death would have frustrated Namibia's progress towards independence, because the signing of the New York Accords and eventual independence completed as agreed upon by all parties."
On the same day, having provided the explanation that Deon required (see SRSG section above), I removed the POV edit.
Deon's pal, Socrates2008, immediately reverted the removal, and subsequently — for reasons best known to himself — moved and redirected the New York Accords article to Tripartite Accord (Angola).
I am again removing this factually incorrect POV edit.---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Socrates2008 has again reverted the removal of the POV edit by Deon Steyn.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV edit by [[User:Deon Steyn|Deon Steyn]]

message: Per WP:WEIGHT, which says If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, I have removed the Haseldine conspiracy theory.  The only sources provided were primary sources--and letters to the editor at that.  There is no evidence that any secondary sources have given this theory any serious consideration.  So even if Haseldine is completely correct that 103 was blown up to get Carlsson, and has uncovered the crime of the century, it doesn't go into the article until someone other than Haseldine also takes notice. Realistically, every international plane flight is extraordinarily likely to have some international personage on it, since such people are much more likely than the general population to take international flights. THF (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely with the above. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haseldine conspiracy theory 

message: The paragraph quoting John Crawford says :
`He had survived a previous attack on an aircraft he had been travelling on in Africa.`
could someone give a reference for this event ? --Houtisse (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN murder inquiry