Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 4


 * Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 1
 * Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 2
 * Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 3
 * Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 4

Try to stop additions
SlimVirgin, I would appreciate it if we ask users to stop editing and/or making additions to this page. I would like it if new pages are created. This is becoming too large (83K) and I would apprecite it if new pages are created. User:SNIyer12(talk) 20:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we can stop it, SN. Size is one concern and POV additions are another, but the edits are being made by anons using dynamic IPs, so they have no fixed talk pages, and they don't seem to look at this one (or else they pay it no attention). I think the flurry of activity is because this article was linked to in the introduction of the 7 July 2005 London bombing. Perhaps we should wait a couple of weeks and hope it quietens down. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, I hope that it quietens down. I have been suggesting for quite a while that new subpages need to be created. I'm very serious about having the article size reduced because 83K is too big. You might want to check the page on a regular basis and let me know if it should be protected or not. User:SNIyer12(talk) 03:45, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, I don't think it is going to quieten down. I see that so many anonymous users are editing the page. I think that the flurry of activity should stop. I think that right now new subpages should be thought about. User:SNIyer12(talk) 21:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the section on the Tripoli/Benghazi bombings to its original status before 'Slimvirgin' (if that's not anonymous I don't know what is - why not reveal your real identity superman/woman?) butchered it. In any case it's not an edit - it's a case of editorialising. And much important information is lost - for example the source of the contention - reference to William Blum's article for example. This is a very important matter and something that should not be relegated to the level of 'conspiracy theory' trivia. The notion that Libya materminded the bombing in revenge for the Tripoli/Benghazi bomging is equally a 'conspiracy theory' in my view and to use a Scottish legal phrase 'not proven'. Also I don't know if William Blum is a relative of one of the victims - I know I'm certainly not so why is it asserted that this is something that 'victim's relatives draw attention to'. Cite sources for your contentions please. As to the matter of 'we don't use terms like ...' - well 'I' do but I am not 'we'. What utter pomposity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.58.68 (talk • contribs)


 * Please read Neutral point of view and No original research. All our edits must comply with it, and any that don't will be reverted, if not by me then by someone else, so if you want your edits to stick, it's worth learning how to write them in a way that's regarded as "encyclopedic."


 * Who is William Blum?


 * Also, please read No personal attacks. The talk pages are supposed to remain civil. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Read them - fascinating. What am I supposed to do now?

William Blum is author of an article entited 'The Bombing of PanAm Flight 103: Case Not Closed'. I don't know where it was originally published but I came across it in volume entitled 'Everything You Know is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to Secrets and Lies' - Edited by Russ Kick, ISBN 0-9713942-0-2. It contains a lot of information on the Lockerbie/Pan-Am disaster that should be considered by anyone who has an open mind. I assume everyone knows who Margaret Thatcher is. I cross-referenced the quotation myself and I am satisfied that the information contained is accurate. Also I think that for an issue as contentious as the Lockerbie/Pan-Am disaster this is about as 'encyclopedic' as you are going to get. Why does the above author choose to enclose the word in inverted commas? Is it not because the term 'encyclopedic' is always going to be relative to the prevailing state of knowledge at any given time? This is voluntary labour after all so it's never going to be the literal truth. If a bunch of Scottish judges can make a hash of things then why should we mere mortals be expected to perform any better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.58.68 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for reading our policies. We have to edit in accordance with them, which means writing from a completely disinterested, neutral point of view, only writing about material already published, and citing reputable sources. You may believe that the Lockerbie verdict was unjust, but you have to write as if you don't believe that. You may believe that Thomas Thurman is discredited, but you have to write as though you don't. If you say that he has been discredited, you have to attribute that to a reputable source. The greater the criticism, the more reputable the source must be. For example, you don't know who William Blum is, so it's best not to use him. The other problem is that so much has been written about PA 103 that we have to be selective regarding the material we use. We can't include everything. Another page for you to read: Sign your posts on talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I find your logic strange. I would imagine that most people could understant the concept of Wikipedia as 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit' as fairly straight-forward proposition. Attaching a load of sub-clauses qualifies this somewhat however - it means that it's not something that anyone can edit. You say I don't know who William Blum is! Well I've never gone for a pint with him if that is what you mean but I've read his article so does that not qualify as knowing him? How acquainted do we have to be? I don't know William Shakespeare in the sense you are talking about (I believe he's dead in fact. At least he hasn't been writing much lately.) so does that mean I can't cite him either. Finally I have attributed a reputable source in discrediting the theory that Lockerbie/Pan-Am was a Libyan revenge attack for the earlier Tripoli/Benghazi air-raids carried out by US airplanes launched from bases in Britain. The reputable source is the personal memoirs of the Prime Minister of the UK at the time of both the Tripoli/Benghazi air raids and the Lockerbie bombing. Her memoirs were written after the charges were filed against the Libyans but clearly exonerate them. Or maybe Prime Ministers just don't know very much about what is going on in the countries they are supposed to be running! Hence we should'nt pay much heed to them. Tony Blair would be a good example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.58.68 (talk • contribs)


 * Okay, it's up to you. If you make encyclopedic contributions that adhere to our policies, they'll stick. If you don't, they won't. And please sign your posts. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why do I have to sign my posts? What difference does it make? You telling me that 'slimvirgin' is your real name. The last time I walked up to a girl and asked if she was 'slimvirgin' she slapped me across the face and told me that she'd get her boyfriend to beat me up if I didn't go away. I still don't know why she reacted in that fashion - I thought it was just an innocent question. That's life I suppose.


 * ;-p


 * It's a rule we have that talk page posts must be signed. It's for ease of reading and archiving. You can produce your signature by typing four tildes after your posts, like so ~ . This will produce your IP address or your user name if you have one, the date and time. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I moved the Thatcher section to the part where it talks about Iran and Jibril. It's not appropriate in the section outlining the motives, because there's no argument in that section, just a description of the two main motives. If we include Thatcher in that section, we'd have to include everyone else who argued for, or against, Libya. It is appropriate, however, in a section dealing with the possibility that the Scots and FBI got it wrong, so I've put it there. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I'll sign my posts. I would just like to (respectfully) say however that I don't see why certain contributions should be pooh-poohed on the basis of the contributor's anonymity. As far as I can see everyone editing Wikipedia is doing so under cover of some kind of alias and in fact this is probably the essence of the website's appeal - that the person can contribute more freely when not under the watchful eyes of whoever. Everybody here is using anonymity. Just logging on and giving yourself a silly name doesn't alter that.

Second point I would like to make is that I'm a bit suspicuous of calls being made to 'ask users to stop making editions', 'stop making changes', 'page is becoming too big' or the comment that 'so much has been written about PA 103 that we have to be selective regarding the material we use'. If you look up the term 'encyclopedic' in a dictionary you fill find that one of the definitions given is "comprehensive in terms of information". So why all the moaning about the 'deluge' of information? (Though to be honest I don't think the page is that big relative to others or even that it has been noticeably added to in recent days/weeks) Wouldn't it be better to help manage the flow of information by building a narrative that makes it all accessible?

A third point I'd like to make here is on the question of all these editorial policies. For me personally if I was seriously to sit down and carefully consider them all I'd still be reading now - I wouldn't have time to contribute anything new or edit anything existing. Frankly they read a bit like telephone books and I also feel that there is a danger here that they can be so wide-ranging and arbitrary that a 'rule' could be found to stop anyone from saying anything that somebody out there doesn't like. I've nothing against people trying to codify a few principles for the benefit of other users but they should be seen as guidelines to assist people rather than blind regulations used to hinder.

To be honest I think a 'neutral point of view' is simply one that lets facts speak for themselves. Also I think that all too often 'neutrality' is elusive in the real world if not least because facts aren't always neutral. That's also why I can't really agree with the proposition of 'writing as if you don't believe something even when you do'. Imagine the torment of those editing the Santa Claus page! The section on God must be fun too!

Anywhere I've come across something I disagree with rather than try to erase it from the record I simply endeavour to bring information to light that offers a different viewpoint. Hence I've nothing against people suggesting that Lockerbie/Pan-Am was a Libyan revenge attack. But other viewpoints should also be aired and weighed in close proximity to each other. If someone wants to duplicate the Margaret Thatcher section to another region that's fine but it should also be left in its original place. Repetition can sometimes be good for a narrative. The evidence from Thatcher's memoirs refer directly to the motive whereas the other arguments 'for or against Libya' concern matters like timers, clothing, airport security and things that happened some years after. Margaret Thatcher is speaking about Tripoli/Benghazi - not Lockerbie/Pan-Am so it belongs under that section.

I think William Blum should be cited for the simple reason of giving credit where credit is due. To the best of my knowledge he is the only person who has brought this information to light - until now. I was about three-quarters of the way through reading 'The Downing Street Years' when I came across Blum's article. It was something that hit me like a light - God he's right! To be honest I'd like to see Margaret Thatcher come on and try her hand at editing this page - before she goes the same way as Ted Heath. She showed courage and the world showed admiration for her when he came through the Brighton bombing. It seems to me she should show courage again and clarify this issue or a question mark will linger over her life and legacy.

And now to sign off - if anything happens to me remember to avenge my death. OscarD 22:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for signing up for an account. People come to know us by our edits, but these can only be followed if we have an account, or always edit with the same IP address. If people can't follow your edits, it does lead to a little suspicion, and you'll find your edits are scrutinized more carefully.
 * Regarding WP:NPOV, it is a policy that is "non-negotiable," in the words of our founder. WP:NOR is the other content policy. We have to stick to both rigidly.
 * The edit you're making (see below) can't stay in the motives section because it's argumentative, and to leave it there, we'd have to introduce other counter-arguments to make the section neutral. It's therefore better in the Iran/PFLP section, where a number of points are already raised against the claim of Libyan involvement. Regarding the wording:

"A point worth highlighting here is one made by William Blum in an article entitled The Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103: Case Not Closed. He draws attention to a comment made by then British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in her 1993 memoirs. Referring to the Tripoli and Benghazi bombings she wrote ... There is just one, passing mention of the Lockerbie/Pan Am bombing (which resulted in the worst ever death-toll from a single terrorist attack to occur on British soil in recent times) in Prime Minister Thatcher's otherwise comprehensive memoirs, and that is in the chronology section (page 871)."


 * If you write in a non-argumentative style, you'll find your edits will stick for longer. Phrases like "It's a point worth noting," and "otherwise comprehensive memoirs" are what we call POV (point of view, as opposed to NPOV, neutral), as is drawing attention to the death toll in parentheses. POV language is likely to mean your edits will be deleted or rewritten. We're not allowed to build cases for any particular point. See WP:NOR.


 * Regarding William Blum, we can't establish who he is, so we can't use him as a source. It isn't necessary to name him anyway. This same point has been made many times by others, and it's not an important point.


 * Finally, we do have to make sure the page doesn't get any longer, as it can be hard for some people to load long pages; it's also less likely to be read if it includes unnecessary details. Thanks for signing your post. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Well, Well Slimvirgin! So you can't establish who William Blum is. Want to hear something that will astound you. Take a deep breath now. He actually has an entry on wikipedia!!!!! I refer you to William_Blum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blum. You didn't look very hard did you? Makes me wonder what other wool you are trying to pull over people's eyes. I'm not even going to bother refuting the other points you make because I don't think you're a very serious person in the first place. But you'd probably say that that is not a 'neutral point of view'. OscarD 22:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see No personal attacks. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The president's commission
I'm not sure I see the point of this section. SN or anyone, do you have a view? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's now titled "Epilogue from the President's Commission": epilogue = concluding section of a literary work that often comments on the main theme or reveals the later fate of the characters. Hence, your government and ours know exactly what happened. But they're never going to tell has to be a most appropriate epilogue for an air disaster that is still shrouded in so much mystery.Phase1 14:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Animated GIF not appropriate here
The diagrams at the start of sectionn 6 are very informative. But animated GIF is not the best way to display them: (1) I can't print them out; (2) I can't stop to examine some feature of interest; the next figure soon obliterates what I was looking at. Please change the animated GIF to a sequence of diagrams. You can always show the animated GIF as well as the diagrams, or provide a link to it. Gdr 14:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you know how to do that, Gdr? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Building a case

 * To the person editing as User:OscarD and within the IP ranges 217.42.0.0 - 217.44.255.255, 81.154.0.0 - 81.157.255.255, and 83.70.160.0 - 83.71.127.255, you're trying to build a case in favor of one of the theories or against another of them, which we're not allowed to do. We're also not allowed to include what we call tiny-minority views, or our own novel analysis or synthesis of published facts. I urge you again to read Neutral point of view and No original research carefully. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Come come Slim, nobody likes a sulkypuss! Just because you're a virgin doesn't mean the rest of us are naieve. I have read Neutral point of view and No original research carefully and am happy that I have complied fully, in letter and in spirit. I suggest you do same. And while your at it read the section on 'No Personal Attacks' which you keep exhorting everyone else to. 'Neutral Point of View' doesn't mean we have to pander to the prejudices of a bigot or someone who simply refuses to see things in the plain light of day. OscarD 21:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

PS: I have also downloaded and copied externally the version which I last edited. If anyone wants to inspect it they're free to ask. I'm not here to proselytise and contrary to what SlimVirgin says I am not trying to build a case - at least not here on Wikipedia. This is not the forum to do so. Wikipedia articles are no more the property of me than they are of any other user like, SlimVirgin for example. I don't know, maybe Libya did carry out the Lockerbie/Pan-Am bombing and the case really is 'closed'. But the information before me suggests that the public is not being told the whole truth and there are a lot of nervous people out there who would like to keep it that way. And I must say that my experience of editing this page and the objections that have been thrown my way simply because I sought to bring some readily verifiable information to the attention of a wider public confirms my suspicions that something not right is going on. I don't intend to make any further contributions to this page at this stage. The simple fact is that no matter what I write I can't stop some agenda-driven individual (or committee of individuals - why does SlimVirgin persistently use the plural pronoun 'we'?) from erasing it. That is the great attraction of Wikipedia but is also its flaw. What I am of a very strong mind to do however is to formally write to Margaret Thatcher and ask her to clarify the issue. And I think she should do this for the benefit of future generations as well as those of us living today, not to mention the families of the victims who'se concerns really should be regarded as paramount. So if anyone has any advice to offer in this regard or would simply like to be kept informed of developments, if any, that ensue please feel free to contact me by leaving a message on my talk page or sending me an e-mail. OscarD 21:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)