Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 5


 * 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
 * Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 5

Page length
As the page is too long, I'm going to start going through it removing unnecessary details and tightening the writing, then we can decide if anything needs to be moved. SNIyer, if you have issues with any particular section, let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oh that's very mature, SlimVirgin! OscarD 22:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyone considering shortening this article should first acquaint themselves with Article size. I can see no justification for 'removing unnecessary details' when the article can just as easily be shortened by breaking up into smaller bites. But really as it says in Article size there is no hard and fast rule as to what size is appropriate. If a topic justifies longer treatment then so be it. Would Tolstoy's 'War and Peace' or Jocye's 'Ulysses' ever have been published if the decision was left to blind obstinates? Also as this is the internet and everything is being stored in 'ether' one can't even say that one is saving the rainforests by taking the butcher-knife in the name of 'edits' - which more often than not bear a suspicious resemblance to 'editorialising'. Moreover it is my intention in due course to review the entire revision history of this article and restore any relevant information that may have been erased - or buried in an inappropriate section - while people's backs were turned. OscarD 22:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * While Article size is a guideline, that doesn't mean it can be ignored. 32K is deemed a reasonable size for a readable article; complicated topics might deserve 40K, or perhaps as much as 50K in the main article.  For example, the article on the country of Germany, including a summary of its entire history, takes 48K.  By contrast, India, with its complex history, demographics, ethnicities, languages, politics, etc., makes do with 30K in the main article. An example of an extremely lengthy article is World War II; the entire event, which lasted 6 years, cost tens of millions of lives, and reshaped the world and ushered in the Atomic age, is covered in 59K, which is still too long.  Thus it is hard to imagine how this single incident justifies a main article of any more than 32K, much less its currently absurdly 80K length. Jayjg (talk)  00:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think that we could create subarticles on the alternative theories, the investigation, and the trial. I think information in those areas can be moved to those new subarticles. Here are the articles I'm proposing:


 * Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
 * Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial
 * Alternative theories into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103

I hope you agree on it. -- SNIyer12(talk) 14:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi SN, good to see you back. I agree with the trial page. As for the others, if we were to move all of these onto separate pages, we wouldn't have much left on this one. What do you think this page should consist of? Maybe we could move the trial, tighten up this page, and see how long it is then. Would you agree to that as a start? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, as you suggested, we should move the trial and we'll start with that. I just started the article about the bombing trial. That article is all yours to add and edit. SNIyer12(talk) 17:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

One difference between Germany and India, Jayjg, is that Germany probably has a lot more computer owners/internet users - hence the disparity in the relative article sizes. And if the respective articles are 48K and 30K at the moment it is only to be assumed that they are going to grow in the future - perhaps exponentially in the case of India. As for the other country, if the Germans I've encountered in my lifetime are anything to go by then I doubt that 48K is enough to contain a single individual's ego let along describe the whole country! And while I'd agree that WW2 was a far greater calamity than the Lockerbie/Pan-Am bombing the latter still remains fresh in living memory of most people alive today. Plus there's the fact that Lockerbie/Pan-Am remains a contentious issue whereas nobody seriously suggests that the Nuremburg Trials were a stitch-up. Ok maybe a few but they're mostly semi-literate types too busy shaving their heads to be logged on here!

Having said that I'm not opposed in principle to breaking up this article - it's a better solution to the 'lenght vs content' issue than the idea of 'shortening the article' and 'tightening up the writing'. In fact it is if you like an 'encyclopedic' solution as it allows Wikipedia to grow organically. I would just again refer everyone to Article size and in particular the guideline that "in most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary". I think the sub-articles that SNIyer12 has proposed sound reasonable enough - so long as they remained linked in with the main article. So go with that if you all agree. As I said previously I intend making no further edits here until I have fully appraised the revision history of this article and figured out exactly what the gremlins in the system, that I suspect are at work, are up to. A final point to leave on. I don't think it automatically follows that brevity ensures readability. And lets not forget that 'encyclopedic' means 'comprehensive in terms of information'. If you try to circumscribe too wide a field of enquiry into too small a space for expression what you come up with can indeed be very dull too. I suppose if I were to offer a literary example of what I'm trying to convey here then I'd suggest Alexander Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo. It's densely layered with multiple plots and sub-plots and runs to perhaps a thousand pages but it's a page-turner from beginning to end. So I'll let that be my thought for the day. Be good while my back is turned! OscarD 21:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the articles on these countries aren't going to grow significantly, because they are assiduously pruned in order to assure that they stay at a readable size. You may notice that they already have many sub-articles which they refer to. This is a regular, on-going process at Wikipedia; articles grow, then are either pruned, or hive off sub-articles. Jayjg(talk) 21:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a wiki, subarticles benefit the reader; everything is a link-click away. El_C 21:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm quite in favour of sub-dividing this article - provided the sub-divisions remain linked to one another and to the 'mother' article. I believe its the best way to let this field of enquiry grow. If you study the revision history and the postings on this Discussion field you will notice that there has been considerable opposition expressed from certain quarters towards the idea of anybody posting new material - 'neutral point of view' and 'no original research' being used as a stick to beat people with for reasons to do with nothing more than sheer obstinacy in my view. But breaking up this article seems to me like a way out of everyone's dilemna - that is assuming that certain people haven't sulked off! OscarD 00:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (sorry, almost forgot to sign my post there - another 'rule' I'm not allowed to disobey!) OscarD 00:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I strongly agree with what OscarD said about sub-dividing the article. The user also agreed with the sub-articles I proposed. I think we'll go ahead and subdivide the article. All three of us will work together on it. SNIyer12(talk) 15:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'm very concerned about other users lengthening the article. They're not heeding our advice about reducing the article size and subdividing the article. I just saw this template on the page:{verylong}. We need this to stop. We agreed to subdivide the article. Because you have not been there, this has all been happening. I've been checking it also and the template really shocked me. I wanted the article to be subdivided. SNIyer12(talk) 15:46, 12 Sept 2005 (UTC)
 * To reduce page length User:SNIyer12 proposed three subdivisions above. Nobody has disagreed with that proposal and, indeed, the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial subarticle is now almost complete. The task before us is therefore to ensure a comprehensive transfer of information from the mother article to the new "Investigation" and "Alternative Theories" subarticles. What we (all Wikipedians) do not need at this stage is another sterile discussion about reducing article size versus editorializing (vide User:SlimVirgin v. User:OscarD above). To that end, I am removing the {very long} template from the mother article and simply getting on with the job!Phase1 12:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't work out how to move just the "Alternative theories" section rather than the whole "mother" article, so I laboriously transcribed the section to Alternative theories into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. In the process of transcription I wasn't able to transfer the images of Ahmed Jibril, Juval Aviv, Vincent Cannistraro and Abu Nidal, but do not consider their absence significantly diminishes the impact of the new subarticle. The "Investigation" section comprises a number of important images which I think should be moved together with the full text to Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Can anyone suggest how this can be done or, preferably, actually transfer the section en bloc?Phase1 12:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that the "Trial" and "Alternative theories" sections have been moved to their respective subarticles, the Pan Am Flight 103 article has moved down to No.504 on the "Long Articles" page with 64,660 bytes. The "Investigation" section makes up approx. 33% of the remaining "mother" article so by moving that section to its new subarticle Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 the remainder should equate to No.1784 - Henry VIII of England - with 41,659 bytes. Hopefully page length issue will then be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.Phase1 13:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks largely to User:Keithlard the "Investigation" subarticle is now complete. The "mother" article is now 45 kilobytes long, which although longer than ideal is about half its original length. Any complaints (or even comments)?Phase1 18:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I want to thank everyone who heeded my thoughts on creating new articles and reducing the article size. I was very concerned about this article becoming too long. Thanks to my suggestions, it is now 45 KB long. -- SNIyer12 18:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Germany
SlimVirgin, it's important to understand that East Germany and West Germany both didn't become unified until 1990. The bombing happened in 1988, so you may want to check the German towns you added to see which Germany it was in then. -- SNIyer12(talk)20:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Largest police inquiry
Surely the July 2005 London bombings investigation has surpassed it? Cdyson37 22:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

fabricated evidence statement
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1855852005

e.g. "The decision of a former Scottish police chief to back this claim could add enormous weight to what has previously been dismissed as a wild conspiracy theory. It has long been rumoured the fragment was planted to implicate Libya for political reasons. "

should be in article?John Z 21:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * it would be useful to know more about the retired CIA officer and the claim he made in 2003. Phase1 09:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

merging with Lockerbie Disaster
Simple: these articles are about the same subject; therefore...we might as well combine them. -- SoothingR 20:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Much better to speedily delete Lockerbie disaster, which apparently was created on October 2, 2005, and adds nothing whatsoever to the Pan Am Flight 103 article.Phase1 20:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The action Pilatus took is best, I think. Just to redirect it here. Any additional information can be added here. Grace Note 06:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I merged the article. Lockerbie disaster redirects to Pan Am Flight 103. SNIyer12 17:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

How the aircraft broke up graphic
I've split this animated GIF into 3 separate frames (as someone suggested previously on talk); I think this is less distracting and easier to read, also, it can be printed now. Keithlard 12:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. When it was previously suggested, nobody knew how to de-animate the GIF.Phase1 14:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Seventeenth anniversary
Yesterday saw a flurry of edits&mdash;mostly unhelpful&mdash;which might reflect the kids' breaking up from school for the Christmas holidays or, more likely, the 17th anniversary of Pan Am Flight 103.Phase1 21:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Photos
Someone changed the main photo again to another with bad sourcing. I know the pic that I put there now Image:PA103cockpit4.png has some quality issues but it's a free image, it's something we can use without dispute. Putting other images that are most assuredly not free when we have a free image is not good. Now I know the replacement was tagged as "crown copyright" but I couldn't find that photo anywhere in the report or I would have used it. I have a lot of other photos to go through on this page because there are copyvios all over it but for now I'm content with the main photo being free.

--Wgfinley 18:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I am that someone who changed the main photo. Your so-called free image is not just a poor quality, but does not correspond with the caption. You say that you have contacted the uploader SlimVirgin about sourcing the Image:AbuNidalLockerbie.jpg, which is a far better quality image and appears on two other articles, so I suggest we assume Slim Virgin will provide the required info in the required time interval. Meanwhile, I am reverting to the better photo, and tagging it as a problem image.Phase1 19:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This image isn't "so called" free, it is, check the image which is precisely sourced. Your "better" replacement image comes from a Geocities site with no remarks whatsoever about where it comes from.  It's stuff we can't use reliably.  Like I said, I know the quality of the image is not superb but it's free and that's better than a good photo that's a copyright violation or unsourced.  --Wgfinley 20:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Original uploader has now provided required source info and tags have been removed from the relevant articles.Phase1 13:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

New article
I think we would like to start an article about the motives to the bombing, since I feel that the article size should be reduced. I'm very concerned about the article going back to being too long. -- SNIyer12 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2006(UTC)
 * As I recall, you were very concerned about the former Pan Am Flight 103 article – at over 100 kilobytes – being too long. So at your behest I, along with several other editors, laboriously split much of that parent article into three subarticles:


 * 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.
 * Now, if I understand you correctly, you are very concerned that the current article size (52 kilobytes) needs to be reduced once again by starting an article about the Motives to the bombing. Section 9, which is the Motives section, cannot be more than a kilobyte or so in length. So what is the rationale behind your concern over the current Pan Am Flight 103 page length, and why do you think a new Motives article is needed, if thereby the main article is merely reduced to 51 kilobytes?Phase1 22:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In final analysis, I don't think that there should be a new article about the motives. I'm satisfied with 51KB. -- SNIyer12 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)