Talk:Pan Am Flight 103 bombing investigation

Splitting out
Am I missing something? This looks like a dumping ground for images from the main Pan Am Flight 103 page - can we delete this now? Keithlard 17:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see my message on your talk page: you are missing something - it's not a dumping ground!Phase1 23:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I didn't realise you're in the process of splitting this article out. If you're doing that, it would be better to do it all in one go rather than leave the article in a broken state for several days where casual browsers (like me) can come across it. Alternatively, if it's under heavy construction, I'd suggest taking it out of the category and making sure it's not linked from anywhere until it's 'ready for press'. Keithlard 10:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that sounded a bit short-tempered - it wasn't meant to be. To prove this isn't just hand-waving and show a bit of good faith, I've made a start on moving the text in from the main article. Keithlard 14:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Mais oui!
For the future, please discuss such issues on the relevant talk page before rushing to edit.Phase4 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The flight – not the aircraft – was Pan Am 103.
 * The information about Lord Fraser of Carmyllie is already on his page but in greater detail.
 * It is a fact that the local police resources were insufficient for such a large investigation. There is no question of POV here.


 * Please do not blanket revert: you managed to mass-delete a huge amount of links for example that have absolutely nothing to do with your three objections above.
 * On your objections:


 * Point 1: a bit pedantic, but feel free to find a better wording. The key thing is that the article must link to the Pan Am Flight 103 article in the opening paragraph. The version you so casually reverted to does not even link to that article in the entire introduction, and I scanned down a fair bit and still couldn't see it: kind of an elementary flaw.
 * Point2: Good, in that case it need not be duplicated here, and especially not in the introduction: it is just totally out of place.
 * Point 2:If it is a fact then you will have a source, re WP:CITE. If you do not have a source, it will go.
 * If you disagree with some of my edits then please discuss, but to blanket revert a large number of non-contentious links like that may be interpreted as vandalism. --Mais oui! 08:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. Perhaps, I should start by saying this article Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 was created (largely by me) as a "sub-article" of the main Pan Am Flight 103 article. Although the sub-article concept tends not to be recognised on Wikipedia, most readers will arrive there having navigated through the main article. So while I see the point you are making about the link to the main article appearing in the opening paragraph I don't agree with your use of the word must. If you go to the "See also" section you can see the links to the main article and the other sub-articles.

Taking your other comments/other issues in sequence:
 * Lord Fraser: I agree it's unusual to have "current" information like this in the intro. But Fraser's recent outburst was unusual, to say the least. I think it should be as close as possible to the first mention of Fraser in the article, but should remain, as it was, in parentheses.
 * POV: I'm afraid you are wrong about this. The piece on police resources was quoted verbatim from a paper presented by the present Lord Advocate Colin Boyd to a conference of law officers in 2001. See "External links"Police investigations of politically sensitive or high profile crimes
 * Spelling: You have changed some NAm spellings to British English eg fiber to fibre and aluminum to aluminium, but not pajamas to pyjamas or woolen to woollen. Nor have all your changes been consistently applied. An activity like this cannot be undertaken lightly or done piecemeal.
 * Wikifying: Customarily in an article a word or subject is wikified once, and not each time the word or subject is subsequently mentioned. You seem to like multiple wikifications eg DERA, Toshiba and Pan Am Flight 103.
 * Large number of links: For me, the best thing about Wikipedia is the wikilinks to other articles: a wealth of information and related info is just a click away. What I don't like to see is an article with a barrage of blue links to self-explanatory subjects. What is even worse is a mass of red links (which aren't links at all because there isn't a wiki article for them, and which could be defined as a form of vandalism). I think it is incumbent upon those who make these distracting red links in an article to go and create the new article, thus converting red to blue.

From the above, you might have gleaned that I don't think the majority of your edits have improved this sub-article. Since an edit war is mostly unproductive and always unseemly, I'll leave it to you to do the right thing.Phase4 16:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have dealt with your points.


 * It is counter-productive when people who work a lot in one particular area become (slightly) proprietorial, although I can perfectly understand the raw human reaction to "your" work being edited. (I'm afraid that once you click that Save page button the work ceases to be your own.)


 * One point of information: I actually removed 4 of (presumably) your duplicate DERA links, so you got that story topsy-turvy.--Mais oui! 14:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have finished the work you started on converting the NAm spellings, removed excessive links but added others, and sorted out your alleged POVs. Grudgingly have to admit a slight improvement to the article overall!Phase4 19:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good article
I have listed this as a good article... cos it is. Not quite ready for Featured article status, but not a million miles away. Next stage should be Peer review.--Mais oui! 14:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Flatterer!Phase4 19:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is missing much from what I've found from just a cursory search. Where is the mention of Dr. Robert Black's considerable involvement. Why no mention that the Maltese shopkeeper (the ONLY evidence of al Megrahi's guilt) could only testify he resembled the person who bought the clothes and in fact not only did al Megrahi not even resemble the shopkeepers original description at all but he also picked out a photo (in 1990) of a terrorist named Abu Talb as resembling the purchaser more closely than al Megrahi did. I'm not talking blogs or alternate news here but sources such as the Guardian and BBC. Wayne 15:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What this and most of the articles on Lockerbie are missing is a NPOV. Even the talk pages -- this one included -- reek of bias. Rapunzel676 (talk)Rapunzel676 —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC).

Good on yer, Wayne. You'll find that both Prof. Robert Black and the Maltese shopkeeper (Tony Gauci) are more than adequately covered in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial article.Phase4 20:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that they are "adequately" covered. Gauci being "an apple short of a picnic" does not give the reader much of an idea why. However I really need to read a lot more sources before editing (or argueing) anything or i'm at risk of mentioning something that may have been discounted over the years. Wayne 12:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AVE4041-rebuilt.jpg
Image:AVE4041-rebuilt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PAYorkie.jpg
Image:PAYorkie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PAradio.jpg
Image:PAradio.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Improving Article
Simply put, this article isn't very good. I knew nothing of this incident, and so decided to read through the article.

Knowing absolutely nothing about the subject prior puts me in a rather good position to judge this article, and in places it was very confusing.

For example, about half way through the article...I encountered this statement.

"In the BBC Two The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie[6] shown on August 31 2008, it was calined that one significant reason for Megrahi's latest appeal was that Gauci, who had picked him out in a line-up, had seen a magazine photograph of him just four days before he made the identification."

This article being the first time I've ever encountered this subject, this is obviously extremely confusing. This is the FIRST mention of Megrahi in the article, and absolutely no explanation of who he is and what he is appealing.

This article seems to be written more of a brief brush-up for those familiar, yet a little rusty, on the subject. It is not written very well when assessed from somebody in my position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.84.160 (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence of this sub-article is as follows: The investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 began at 19:03 on December 21, 1988 when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland.


 * Anyone who knows nothing about the incident should click on the wikilink to the main Pan Am Flight 103 article, and all is immediately revealed. That is the beauty of Wikipedia.


 * Other sub-articles related to this incident are Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial and Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm putting in a link to the main article in a header. That's my two scents.---petero9 (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, petero9, the link to the main article in a header is a good solution. I'll insert the same link into the two other sub-articles.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed, see Template:Main for proper use which specifically excludes use at top of article. Reader should follow links to main article for more information. — Deon Steyn (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Manly padlock
There is another reminder in Issue 1239 of Private Eye of the break-in discovered by Heathrow security guard Ray Manly on the morning of the bombing, and the broken padlock which he handed to the police. His evidence was never produced in court, at either the original trial or the FAI. But it does not seem to appear anywhere in the article. Is this information considered as unverifiable? Apparently, in view of Al Megahi's deteriorating health, Jim Swire has written again to request a re-opening of the FAI. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now overtaken by events, it seems even less likely that this "evidence" will ever be produced in a court if law. But am still interested as to its verifiability for the purposes of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Scottish police relaunch investigation into Lockerbie bombing
--Mais oui! (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6889500.ece
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/6425205/Police-relaunch-Lockerbie-bombing-investigation.html
 * http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-police-open-new-lines.5764264.jp
 * http://news.stv.tv/scotland/132599-lockerbie-bombing-under-police-review/
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8324512.stm
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8324742.stm
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/scottish-police-to-launch-new-inquiry-into-lockerbie-1809209.html

Lockerbie: eight other 'high-level' suspects
--Mais oui! (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-eight-other-39highlevel39-suspects.5764820.jp

Serious NPOV issues with "Forensic lessons from England"
This section needs to be edited, if not deleted entirely. The lead alone reeks of bias. The writer makes it sound as if the Scots (or is it the investigators?) had been very naughty and needed to be taught a lesson by their betters. I recognize that there are differing -- and very strongly held -- views on who was responsible for the bombing and how the case was handled, but as editors it is our job to remain as objective as possible when determining the content of an encyclopedic article. There is nothing objective about "Lessons." Rapunzel676 (talk)Rapunzel676 —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC).


 * I agree. The section now looks completely out of context, it does not say a word about PA-103 investigation. Apparently it hints some flaws in the investigation, but does not state it clearily based on sources. I will remove the section. --Mgar (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with the deletion. There may or may not be any NPOV issues. And the comparison being made may be perfectly valid. But without a secondary source, to show the relevance of (R v Ward (1993) 96 Cr.App.R.) to this case, it represents WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "On December 27, 2018 'Wired', an online news website published a long article, it highlights that the head of the U.S. Justice Department’s criminal division, Robert Mueller oversaw the case. Additional details are given."
 * 'Oversaw' is the wrong word. It implies supervision, governance etc. The US Justice Department is/was not the investigator of record here and has no jurisdiction in the Scottish criminal justice system. And 'Robert Mueller'? The fact that this DoJ operative is (or has the same name as) connected with the Trump presidency is really of no relevance to the investigation of the Lockerbie disaster - or to the Scottish court system. Really, it's of zero importance.31.49.28.120 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pan Am Flight 103 bombing investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090129073546/http://www.theherald.co.uk:80/news/news/display.var.2481827.0.Secret_talks_on_deal_to_return_Megrahi_to_Libya.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2481827.0.Secret_talks_on_deal_to_return_Megrahi_to_Libya.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Departure time
In Pan Am Flight 103 main page, it is stated that contrary to many popular accounts of the disaster, the flight, which had a scheduled gate departure time of 18:00, left Heathrow airport on time. The introduction here says the opposite, or, it might be claimed, relies on one of those "many popular accounts". (The articles' respective claims are both properly sourced, but due to the way it's been written, I tend to believe the version where the plane was on schedule.) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pan Am Flight 103 bombing investigation. 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.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2481827.0.Secret_talks_on_deal_to_return_Megrahi_to_Libya.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824114758/http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1664337.0.0.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1664337.0.0.php

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) 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)