Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 8

message: The section investigation last paragraph has these uncited claims:
Investigators also discovered that an unaccompanied bag had been routed onto PA 103, via the interline baggage system, from Luqa airport on Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt, and then by feeder flight PA 103A to Heathrow. This unaccompanied bag was shown at the trial to have been the suitcase that contained the bomb.
Trying to find a citation from this I read the court decision of the case and the appeals court decision. http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/Legal/HCJ/Lockerbie/Lockerbieappealjudgement.htmlThese sentences are not correct and need to be changed. The court had a record of a bag being sent to PA 103 in Frankfurt from the station and approximate same time as other bags being unloaded from KM180. There is however no record of an unaccompanied bag on flight KM180. Nor is there any additional evidence that this is the bag that carried the bomb. The court inferred that there was an unaccompanied bag on KM180 that got past their security system. It inferred that this is the bag being sent to Pan Am 103. It inferred that this carried the bomb. The appeals court upheld that the trial court had the legal right to make these inferences. But other than that computer record there is no evidence such as the current sentences indicateAbarenbe (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: investigation

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

message: 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)
thread_title: How many more sources?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article misleads readers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  It requires references/source section cleanup. Looks like a mess to me at the moment. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned up the mess a bit by formatting and referencing.Phase4 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: 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)
replies: text: This is all conspiratorial stuff. I have disputed your nomination for deletion.Phase4 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 (). The image may be reuploaded to EN (With a source, preferably) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do you explain your other three edits to the article on 25 November 2007?Phase4 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good explanations: I'm impressed.Phase4 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image:PA103cockpit4.jpg

message: 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.
 07:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phase1 = Phase2 = Phase4 = PJHaseldine = [[Patrick Haseldine]]

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Returning to the "Explosion" paragraph

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Let's see some references - that will end the speculation/edit war very quickly. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's certainly authoritative - are you going to add it to the citations? Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Feeder flight PA103A

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ulster Defence League

message: 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)
thread_title: Injuries

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Naming Convention

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Bombers Release

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV?

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

text: 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)

text: Except that Pan Am 103 killed more Americans than Oklahoma City.... Hairhorn (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. ....hope this helps.  --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: deadliest terrorist attack against the United States?

message: 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)
thread_title: Possible repetition

message: 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)
thread_title: FBI director Robert Mueller's response to Megrahi's early release

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Stratfor's analysis

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not really. It also fails WP:N and WP:V. --John (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Depictions in media

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *I second this.--Carriden (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: * 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)
thread_title: John in violation of [[WP:EL]]

message: As of 2007, a Scottish court ruled that an appeal would now be admissible, as doubts of the correctness of the prior judgment from January 31st, 2001, have arisen, citing signs for evidence manipulation, suppression of data from involved agencies, and other irregularities.
Grave doubts exist concerning the central piece of evidence, an electronics board fragment allegedly fabricated by a Swiss firm, MEBO, which were used by the Libyan secret service. After discovery of evidence manipulation.
The Swiss firm's chief states that while MEBO's product was green, the evidence shown to him was of another color brown, and when shown again later, so burnt that color was not discernible. 
A former engineer from MBO stated under oath that he himself secretly supplied electronic boards from his firm to investigators on June, 22nd 1989, which were later used as evidence with political motivation.  10:09, 28 October 2009 62.99.214.10 (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Timer fragment

message: * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/megrahi-s-case-was-wrongful-conviction-1.993935
* "The UK relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing have stepped up their campaign for a full public inquiry into the atrocity, after they hired one of the country's best-known human-rights lawyers to plead their case"
I have added a ref to the Gareth Peirce article, but we probably need to update 2 or 3 other articles, eg. Jim Swire. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Megrahi’s case was ‘wrongful conviction’"

message: Could somebody tell me why the plane went up to Scotland from London to go to America? Why did it not go straight from London to USA? 86.148.38.173 (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: . It's called the Great Circle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.141.128 (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Citing "Air Traffic Control" by Graham Duke,  (4th edition, published in 1992)Achilver (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight path?

message: "However, as the first anniversary of his release approaches, he is still alive and his condition has reportedly improved although he still has the cancer. One of the doctors that certified his life expectancy at less than three months now claims he could potentially survive for up to 20 more years."
This seems too slanted toward recent events, in particular, the phrasing. - MK (t/c) 04:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recentism

message: While much of this discussion page is editors quibbling about non-essential irrelevancies you can't even get the basic facts straight. What kind of plane was it? The lead says, "the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 747-121..." and the Flight Plan section says, "Pan Am Flight 103 was a Boeing 747-100...". Cottonshirtτ 04:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic Facts

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5naaWe3nLI&feature=player_embedded
here's an animation of the destruction, might be useful. 83.19.61.66 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: animation

message: I found:
* "LOCKERBIE: THE SECRET EVIDENCE." The Sunday Herald. April 9, 2000. Start page 9.
It sounds like an editorial but it isn't marked as such
Also it states "The DEA and the US Department of Justice deny any link to the bombing or drugs and claim Aviv is a liar, as is anyone else supporting Shaughnessy's theory. But the US government has hounded and persecuted those who break rank on Lockerbie. Aviv was prosecuted by the FBI for an alleged fraud involving one of his clients, GE Capital, even though the company said it was entirely satisfied with Aviv's work and filed no complaint against him. A jury returned a not guilty verdict against Aviv and the judge speculated that the reason for the prosecution could have been his Lockerbie report." - Where else can I find information about this?
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this an editorial? - and Juval Aviv

message: * I propose to move the link  “Pan Am 103 - The Lockerbie Coverup Inside story by Dr. William C. Chasey which contradicts the US Government's coverup. ” to the External Links section. This links to http://www.truthneverdies.com/panam-103-the-lockerbie-cover-up/ which is clearly not an internal Wikipedia page. 
* I propose to slightly reorganize the existing links under the See Also heading.  The 3 most pertinent Wikipedia articles first (Investigation into bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Pan Am Flight 103 bombing Trial, Pan Am 103 conspiracy theories), followed by the links to notable persons in alphabetical order (Cohen then Swire), followed by the list of links to other airline bombings in chronological order as much as possible. I will add the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTA_772) for the Wikipedia page for UTA 772, it is the most relevant airline bombing to PA 103 topic.
* I propose to delete the section titled “Also see” and move the one link listed under that heading “Timeline of airliner bombing attacks“ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks) to the See Also section.
* The Wikipedia definition for the See Also section is “--A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous.”
SPHanson (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also section needs clean up  

message: * "The United States may try to prosecute Colonel Muammar Gaddafi for the Lockerbie bombing, after claims from former Libyan officials that he personally ordered the attack on the airline that killed 270 people.", The Scotsman, 2 March 2011
--Mais oui! (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "US threatens to put Gaddafi in dock over Lockerbie bombing" 

message: In the section "Helsinki Warning", the line One of the Frankfurt security screeners, whose job it was to spot explosive devices under X-ray, told ABC News that she had first learned what Semtex (a plastic explosive) was during her ABC interview 11 months after the bombing is not clear.
When did she first learn was Semtex was? And when was her interview?
This sentence should be rewritten to be more clear but I don't have enough information to rewrite it. 
Crk112 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did she learn what Semtex is? 

message: In the Compensation from Libya and Alleged Mastermind section, reference is given to the accusation against Gadaffi, with included links. I find them to be a bit redundant, so I want to remove the paragraphs and shift the citations to the Claims of Responsibility section. However, I prefer to get consent from other editors, to avoid flame wars. Thanks.
Eddievhfan1984 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new al-Gadaffi info is doubled and other concerns

message: Who decided that a made-up, non-official image should be used to illustrate this article? It's an artists interpretation of the events. How can this image be remotely reliable? What sources did they use to create this picture? The image is thus a representation of a person's imaginative viewpoint, therefore 1. it violates WP:Original Research, 2. it violates WP:NPOV 3. if article copy is required to adhere to the latter principles, then it should also be used for images, too.
It is could be construed to be offensive to both the memory of the victims and their families to have an image that has been rendered by someone who was neither a first-hand eyewitness or is questioned about how they made this image based on their assumptions. The image should be removed and replaced with a proper image, such as the one of the plane itself lying on its side. 
The use of created images makes me feel uncomfortable because there are no prescribed boundaries to their accuracy. Any decision to whether it "looks right" is therefore entirely arbitrary. This is a slippery slope because someone could argue that 9/11 should be represented with some abstract artwork or Hiroshima could be rendered in watercolors etc etc  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.7.2 (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Removed. - Crosbie 09:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too, who is to say what happened that night. Just because it is a good drawing does not make it so! IMO like said before, any artist rendition is OR, it has to be because a million people would all draw different things. Who is to say what is not [[WP:OR|original research]? Only a real image must do and where on is not available, real actuality not artists impressions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.238.85 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantasy infobox image - remove! 

message: There used to be a part about the fate of this family. It was probably one of the most well written parts I've seen on Wikipedia. It seems to be gone. 
Could we readd it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionheart Omega (talk • contribs) 05:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suruchi Dixit Rattan 

message: There used to be a part about the fate of this family. It was probably one of the most well written parts I've seen on Wikipedia. It seems to be gone. 
Could we readd it? Lionheart Omega (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suruchi Dixit Rattan 

message: Is there any purpose to having this section in the article? It should be removed if the importance can't be justified. ~Ttony21(talk, contribs) 22:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Section: "People booked who did not board" 

message: Can you put the image again?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.209.48 (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
about a mile sse of where it is, behind go-kart track
—99.240.156.209 (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you looking at a Google Earth display? That resource has a known problem of sometimes mislocating coordinates' postitions. The place displayed at the coordinates given for the scrapyard (which are the only coordinates I see in the article) in Google Maps, Bing maps, OS maps, etc, certainly looks like a scrapyard next to a go-kart track. Deor (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've confirmed that this is one of the instances in which the Google Earth "Open" link in GeoHack will take you to the wrong place (unlike the "w/ meta data" link, which take you to the right place and is, in most cases, far more reliable) and that the existing coordinates appear to be correct, as is confirmed by this Panoramio photo. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: *"8 Marylanders died on Pan Am Flight 103." Baltimore Sun.
*"'Pan Am 103': Parents of one victim tell their tale." June 22, 2000.
*Platell, Amanda. "This gross insult to the grieving of Lockerbie." The Daily Mail. 9 June 2007.
*"The Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103." The Washington Post.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More stuff

message: Have any discussions been aired into the people who got off the Pan Am 103 fight which originated in Frankfrurt, how many people boarded in Frankfurt and got off in London?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butters51 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who got off Pan Am 103 before it crashed? 

message: The following article () discusses this article, and has claims about POV and bias.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  09:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting critique by Ludwig Braeckeleer! However, his claims about POV and bias on Wikipedia are directed specifically at the Operation Entebbe article, and not at Pan Am Flight 103. Braeckeleer says that alleged MI5 agent, Linda Mack, was claimed to have steered Pierre Salinger's Lockerbie investigation towards Gaddafi's Libya, once Fhimah and Megrahi were indicted in 1991, and away from other suspects such as Iran and the PFLP. But he does not elaborate on how such a claim could impact upon the integrity of this or any other Wikipedia article.Phase4 11:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm reviving this discussion as there appears to be a link between Linda Mack and edits made on this page.  See  and compare that against the edit history of SlimVirgin.  Is this not relevant to anyone?KlappCK (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well..there's more info here , but ya know most articles in Wikipedia on politically sensitive topics (and also ethically sensitive topics) have steep slants. Wikipedia has corruption like others, but I think there needs to be something done about all these things. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 7 - This Article In The News 

message: According to today's Times:
* It is understood that the Lockerbie inquiry team are keen to speak to Abudullah al-Senussi, a key figure in the Gaddafi regime. Al-Senussi is believed to be in custody in the town of Sabha after his capture, along with Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son, last month. Al-Senussi, known as the executioner, is already wanted by the International Criminal Court.
--Mais oui! (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Abdullah Senussi]]  - "The Executioner" - to be interviewed by Scottish police 

message: Perhaps someone could add the following development in the case to the article?
Specifically the info from SCCRC about Gauci (shopkeeper from Malta), and the quote from Megrahi. 130.88.195.80 (talk) 11:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New evidence