Talk:Jim Swire

Untitled
I removed stuff that's really a recounting of the trial. We already have articles that cover this - this article should be about the person. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of this article?
I think the point of this article needs to be made more clear. It just states that he is a doctor in the opening paragraph and then gives details of his life.Ray gillespie 07:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this observation: I've revised the intro to clarify the point of the article.Phase4 09:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ...Did Swire not spend some time in the military as an officer and given knowledge of explosives during that period of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.154.168 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup
There are way too many sections, and they need to be cut down. Also, I fear that there may be a bit of pro-Libya/pro-Swire POV, so I added the tag too. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is a bit of a mess at present, but there are real problems with the neutrality tag. There is a genuine gulf between perceptions of the issue in the US and Britain. Most Brits are very suspicious of the Megrahi conviction, and are broadly supportive of Swire. This includes relatives of people killed in the bombing. The anti-Swire statements made by some legal figures in London and Edinburgh don't reflect public opinion at all. This doesn't stem from any pro-Libya feeling, and indeed memories of the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher remain strong. OTOH, US public opinion seems quite different. In these circumstances it's difficult to imagine how the article could be rewritten to appear non-POV to all parties. --Ef80 (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The anti-Swire statements made by some legal figures in London and Edinburgh don't reflect public opinion at all." - The statements I added never said that they reflected "public opinion," and the article shouldn't say what the public opinion is unless a reliable source states so. It's okay anyways to post negative statements from legal figures in London, as long as they are properly attributed.
 * "Most Brits are very suspicious of the Megrahi conviction, and are broadly supportive of Swire." - In order to put that in the article, the statement needs a reliable source - and the same with any statement about American families.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that statements about US and UK public opinion be included in the article. I am suggesting that the neutrality tag be removed, as I think the POV claim is partisan. --Ef80 (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is a total mess
Clearly the powers that be have destroyed Jim Swire's working life, and now looks for full redaction. Well done moderators for allowing this article to descend into chaos. May I suggest that Jim Swire's efforts digging into the nonsense behind his daughters murder be assigned to the Orwellian "Memory Hole" ASAP. This entry is totally pointless. This bombing happened 23 years ago, and still the lies are full on, even extending to the release of al-Megrahi - it's never ending. 23 years of Jim Swire's campaigning and we have this garbage. I despair. This sort of article is the reason I would NEVER contribute money to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.226.16 (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

At least I can take a knife to this
I'm going to remove a good bit of unsourced content, the last version before I started is at, and can be checked if someone wants to look for facts to restore -- after finding sources for them. What I would suggest *instead*, however, is narrowing and focusing content which does not directly refer to Swire, and looking for new material which discusses him specifically Anyway, it's done now, have at. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Susan and Daniel Cohen and Jim Swire
Re: The removal of this content

The Cohens believed Swire was being manipulated by Gadhafi and the Libyan government. Their claims are in a non-self-published book, and I do think it is important to include that view. If other people believe the same view they can be mentioned too. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Jim Swire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5260/egyptsw.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Swire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150630113406/http://www.firmmagazine.com/justice-for-megrahi-campaign-launches/ to http://www.firmmagazine.com/justice-for-megrahi-campaign-launches/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)