Talk:Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories/Archive 3

wtf??
"The Lord Advocate then effectively confirmed that Libya had been framed..."

this is blatant POV on the part of conspiracy theorists, so i've added a "totally-disputed" marker. Benwing 06:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with you. This article is a constant battle, some editors don't seem to appreciate the fact that there have been several trials and the only ones ever found guilty are Libyan agents and Libya even agreed to pay damages or compensation. It is fine to have a list of alternate theories, but within reason and keeping NPOV in mind. --Deon Steyn 07:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The "framing of Libya" section should have made clear that the bulleted points were direct quotes from the Lord Advocate's speech and therefore cannot be POV or factually inaccurate. I have inserted the text of his speech as an inline reference, and am removing the tag.Phase4 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restored this talk page section which was incorrectly archived (it is still active) by Phase4 immediately after their last response. As for the original discussion: I have corrected the quotes according to the style guidelines for quotations, included in WP:MOS. I have also corrected the misleading statements that introduce the Lord Advocate, Lord Boyd's comments in the cited paper as evidence of Libya being framed when Lord Boyd himself in that very paper lists the evidence to prove that Libya was in fact not framed and that the listed evidence proves it. --Deon Steyn 11:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive of this page (Framing of Libya)
User User:Phase4's archive of this talk page is not correct:
 * 1) He archived an active discussion which in fact question the NPOV of some of his edits, while leaving older discussions.
 * 2) He numbered the archives incorrectly, archives should start with number 1, the highest number being the last archive which is the reverse of how he did it.

Furthermore I have corrected false claims in the section on the framing of Libya which imply that Lord Boyd's paper shows that Libya was framed when Lord Boyd in fact goes out of his way to state that this was not the case. The section also included selective quotes that further bias them. Can you, User:Phase4 please correct the archive numbering (see How to archive a talk_page). --Deon Steyn 09:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * After I created Archive 2 and 3, I discovered that whoever created Archive 1 had left it empty. So rather than creating an Archive 4, I simply filled the empty Archive 1. The contents of Archives 2 and 3 do not in my view need to precede Archive 1, so I propose to leave the numbering as it is.Phase4 10:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the only person listed in the edit histories of all 3 archive pages so I have to respectfully disagree with your explanation. I have restored the active topic ("wtf?") that should not have been archived in the first place. You are abusing the process of Talk Page archive by removing previous discussions. Please refrain from this action and again consult How to archive a talk page. --Deon Steyn 11:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restored the archives as best I could so that Archive1. --Deon Steyn 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the original Archive 1. As I said above, it was empty when I moved the recent sections to it.Phase4 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mossad blew up TWA 103
Abu Nidal was a Israeli sponsor terrorist. The Mossad was all over that trial, they were behind planting the transmitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.194.210 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WTF 2
This page is clap-trap BS.

"More than 300 Namibians were killed as a result" -> armed SWAPO combatants crossed the border defying a U.N. resolution! The south african army acted under a UN mandate!

This page is ridiculous...

The fact that the SWAPO members was armed can be seen in the large amount of caspirs that got shot to pieces during that specific conflict...196.38.218.24 17:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what point you are trying to make: is it that less than 300 Namibians were killed? Or that the article fails to mention how many Caspirs were pulverised? Please explain.Phase4 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Iran and the London angle
I've moved yesterday's interesting edit by anon IP 213.78.145.81 from the article to the talk page so that it can be developed:


 * Iranianian device infiltrated at Heathrow Airport


 * This theory claims that an Iranian device was brought in by air on an Iranian aircraft on 20 December 1988 and placed in the baggage container AVE4041 by an Iranian agent who broke the padlock on the access doors to the Pan Am 103 apronside area. It is based on the argument that Iran had a grudge against the US over the destruction of the Iranian Airbus, which seemed to subside after Lockerbie, that there was a broken padlock at Heathow on the night in question, and the Iran Air facilities and the Pan Am ones were adjacent at the airport.


 * The pobelem it faces are that the Iran Air flight it aome on in is unknown. However, the author produces a number of arguments against other theories, while not being able to prove descively his own (see Investigation by UTA Flight 772 relative).

At first glance, it does not seem to be a new theory at all - more like a long and rambling detective novel, unsupported by reliably sourced information. If the postulated inbound Iran Air flight can be identified, then this could be included in the existing Iran and the London angle theory. Apart from this, I think the UTA Flight 772 relative's report adds very little useful information to the Pan Am Flight 103 situation.Phase4 10:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)