Jump to content

Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Accidental blanking?

Two Categories were added today by Sepa. Cleared as filed presumably intended to rv these two Cats but ended up blanking half of para 12 and the whole of paras 13 to 19. I've now restored the page to the last version by Guinnog.Phase1 16:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my blunder. —Cleared as filed. 16:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming

Even CNN calls it by the British name - http://www.cnn.com/LAW/trials.and.cases/case.files/0010/lockerbie/ - it happened in the UK so the article should get the British name. PMA 07:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem about the "naming" of the article: tap in Lockerbie bombing and hey, presto here you are!Phase4 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This was the deadliest attack on American civilians until 9/11? What about the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing? That killed something like 400 Americans.

What are you talking about? The OKC Bombing killed 168 people. I'm not trying to down play the significance but it's certainly isn't 400 Americans like you stated. TripleH1976 2:24pm., 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 WAS the deadliest terrorist attack against the United States until 9/11. OKC Bombing killed 168, Pan Am Flight 103 killed 189 Americans. -- SNIyer12, 02:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
This goes beyond it being American or British, this article is about a plane crash, and if you check around all articles about plane crashes use the airline + flight number model: Avianca Flight 52, American Airlines Flight 587, United Airlines Flight 232, Japan Air Lines Flight 123, TWA 800, this tragedy and article is no different. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 15:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is about a terrorist attack, not a plane crash. -- SNIyer12, 01:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Even the lower discussions on this talk page call the incident by its british name; taking place in britain i firmy agree that this should be named such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyroo g (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Jaswant Basuta??

Who is Jaswant Basuta and why is he part of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.58.16 (talk • contribs)

Jaswant Basuta was a passenger who, after checking in and heading to the gate, stopped at the airport bar and ended up missing the flight by a few minutes. He was later held under suspiscion of being involved in the bombing, but released after he checked out. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 06:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pan Am Flight 103

The Pan Am Flight 103 category already embraces the Terrorist incidents in the 1980s category. The category Aircraft hijackings is not appropriate for the Pan Am Flight 103 article. I have therefore reverted the categories added today by Juux.Phase4 16:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external links was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 05:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Memorials

I've added in memorials in Lockerbie, well the ones that I know of, and included sources so Phase4 leaves them alone. I don't know if anyone knows of any others but the ones that were listed were all foreign, I think it would be appropriate to ensure that UK based ones are updated too --Goggage 14:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured?

For the longest time I have felt this is an excellent article; the only real obstacle to making it a featured article is the citing of sources. If we worked hard to put in some inline citations, we might be able to bump it up to that status. PBP 03:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

As stated above, inline citations would really help this article, since there's a lot of facts.

The prose is generally quite good and I think it maintains NPOV well... but the "rumours" mentioned are troubling me, since they are generally not in-line cited well enough to put a critical eye to how seriously to take them.

I would recommend you submit this to the Wikipedia:Peer review process, since I think there'd be a lot gained by doing so.

Content suggestions:

  • Inline citations with major facts.
  • Would it make some sense to split "The Passengers" up to something like "The Flight Begins" and then restart "The Passengers" with "There were 243 passengers..."?
  • Wouldn't the section on the Dixit family be better in "The Victims"? Was this a media phenomenon?
  • The "as reported by"s really should be moved to citations for consistency with the other refs.... same with the stuff in brackets ...(Cox and Foster 1992)...
  • External links to the law firms invovled in the settlement?
  • Google Maps links to where the memorials are?

PrimroseGuy 17:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You cannot judge this article in isolation: there are three sub-articles: Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103; Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial; and, Alternative theories into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Each of the articles has its own merits eg the latter has been cited as a source on at least two occasions by a media organisation. The suggested peer review should, in my view, be conducted simultaneously into all four articles and they should all be considered for GA status and/or featured article status. But that's only my view!Phase4 21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The GA and FA processes really seems to be structured on an "article in isolation" approach. I'm restricting my comments only to this article. If the sub-articles are appropriate for GA, someone needs to tag them for review in the same fashion as this one and list them on GACandidates as well then. PrimroseGuy 22:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

High Profile persons scheduled to be aboard the flight

My professor, Ambassador David Fischer, who was Consul General in Munich at the time, claims to have also had reservations for Pan Am Flight 103, along with his wife/family. He said something came up and they changed the tickets. So, I believe he could be added as another high profile person who changed tickets from this flight. He stated this last week in class and would probably make a substantiating statement if need be.69.181.40.182 06:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good anecdotal stuff. Not notable enough to be included in the article, though. However, if the Consul General had prior notice of the "Helsinki warning" and changed the booking on that account, then he definitely qualifies for an entry in the article!Phase4 20:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

GA nom has passed

Article mmets "What is a GA?". For FA I would recommend converting the refs to the newer cite.php format. I fixed some formatting issues on the headings.[1] Iolakana•T 15:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Swapping images

For some time the info box image has not been visible. I uploaded a new image for the info box today swapping it for the invisible image which, in its relocated position, is now OK.Phase4 15:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but on the other hand, I don't think a picture of the plane in one piece months well before the bombing is very recognizable. The picture of the broken nose section made headlines worldwide and is instantly recognizable as the Lockerbie bombing. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 03:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Quite so. The picture of the broken nose section had inexplicably disappeared from the crash info box but has been moved further down in the intro and is now perfectly visible. The picture of the plane in one piece is clickable and, when you do this, it becomes immediately recognizable.Phase4 10:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sunday Herald: Lockerbie trial was a CIA fix, US intelligence insider claims

According to the Sunday Herald, "Michael Scharf, who was the counsel to the US counter-terrorism bureau when the two Libyans were indicted for the bombing, [has] described the case as “so full of holes it was like Swiss cheese” and said it should never have gone to trial." He has also called it a "whitewash".[2] -- noosphere 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe a word you read in the Tabloid papers. --Rehnn83 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The Sunday Herald is not a tabloid, but a well-respected paper. --Guinnog 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Strange article by Home Affairs Editor, Liam McDougall, in the Sunday Herald! No indication is given by McDougall as to when Michael Scharf came to this conclusion, nor to whom Scharf's remarks were made. You'd never guess from Scharf's February 2001 article entitled The Lockerbie Trial Verdict that the Lockerbie case was anything like gruyère or emmental. [3]I reckon Scharf is positioning himself, and preparing the rest of us, in advance of the SCCRC's imminent, likely decision to refer Megrahi's case back to the High Court of Justiciary for another appeal against conviction.Phase4 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 02:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Delisting

I am delisting this article because it has terrible prose (I couldn't even understand the lead), is poorly organised and lacks inline citations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Veesicle (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 March 2007

Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked

14th April 2007- A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated. He has confirmed that parts of the case were fabricated and that evidence was planted. At first he requested anonymity, but has backed down and will be identified if and when the case returns to the appeal court. http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1855852005

This is quite a good artical with mention of the different controversies including some not noted in the WP artical. It definately rates inclusion. I'm not Scottish and have no idea how reliable the Scotsman is so will leave it for discussion what to add to the WP page. Wayne 05:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Scotsman actually reported this item about faked key evidence on February 28, 2005. It is already included in Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103#The timer fragment (Ref:12). I don't think it's necessary to repeat the allegation in the main Pan Am Flight 103 article at this stage.Phase4 10:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference this time. Anyone can claim what they like anonomously but the police chief is now willing to be identified which makes it notable. Wayne 11:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this update, Wayne. Could you please cite the Scotsman article of 14th April 2007 in which the new information appears.Phase4 09:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

rm mis-placed coordinates tag?

Phase4, I don't understand why you removed the coordinates geocoding I recently added. Are you saying that point "C" is not the best point to use, or that 55°5.7′N 3°20.3′W / 55.0950°N 3.3383°W / 55.0950; -3.3383 are not the correct coordinates for point "C"? --GregU 15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The coordinates are no doubt entirely correct, GregU, but they actually appeared outside the crash info box and alongside the title of the Pan Am Flight 103 article, without any explanation. That's what I meant by their being mis-placed.Phase4 10:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the standard way to indicate the exact location, for any article that can be associated with a geographic location. See WP:GEO. You'll see this format used on many other articles about regions, cities, geographic features, landmarks, etc. External mapping applications such as Google Earth automatically create linkages to Wikipedia articles that have coordinates indicated this way (in the title area). --GregU 13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for educating me on the subject of coordinates. I've reinserted them inline, rather than alongside the title, which I hope will be easier for the average reader to understand.Phase4 16:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed strange additon

removed "eating salty tacos" from article. Unsure what salty tacos had to do with the fact that many of the dead where American. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.204.232 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pan_Am_Flight_103/Archive_6&oldid=1050334554"