User talk:Barbara81

Al Megrahi
You seem to have misread my explanation. We are not in agreement that the source does not support the current text. I feel that it does and you feel that it does not. I also feel that the source does not support your requested change, which makes it seem that the association with Libyan intelligence is an unsupported allegation of the FBI. I did not ask for references, since I feel the current text is adequately supported, but most of these new sources also do not support the change you requested. "...an F.B.I. investigation concluded that his job was a cover for his work as an intelligence officer for the Libyan intelligence service, which Mr. Megrahi denied but which the court accepted..." does not condense down to "the accused is alleged to be a Libyan intelligence officer, he himself denies." It condenses down to "he is a former Libyan intelligence officer, although he continues to deny this", but it is not really surprising, nor particularly worth mentioning, that a convicted criminal denies something about his crime. That is a key misunderstanding here: he is not "accused"; he was convicted. The details that were accepted by the court when he was convicted are treated as facts, not allegations. Each place you read "the court accepted" or "the court agreed", you should read it as being an accepted fact. If you want to get other opinions, you should use some form of dispute resolution, not forum shop by asking for the edit over and over again. At this point, someone servicing the request should see my explanation and decline it due to lack of consensus. Celestra (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Celestra (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from accusing me of POV for failing to go along with your edit request. You need to read the policy on WP:NPOV to understand that fringe theories do not have to be treated equally to findings in a court of law. Your edit request itself would move us away from NPOV and toward a fringe POV that he has somehow been wrongly convicted. However, I assumed you make that request to improve the article and not to promote some personal belief. Your behavior after I pointed out that the current text is supported, and the requested change is not, makes it increasingly difficult to continue to do so. Celestra (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Im in agreement with your confusion as to how the Intelligence claim can be called a "fact". I always thought a fact needed some proof rather than just the evidence of a description from an outside group. Furthermore its surprising to discover that the only evidence for the layman that he was an intelligence agent seems to start with the investigation and no source outside the FBI (or more particularly from records in Libya) are able to be provided). In layman's terms, this would make it more of an opinion than a "fact"! 92.235.178.44 (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't how to make it clearer: the source supports the current text and does not support the change you requested. There are a handful of sources that choose to be overly P.C. in describing his relationship to Libyan intelligence. (There was even one column I saw that claims that his release is proof that he was wrongly convicted.) Those few sources do not invalidate the current text or cancel out the other sources. Celestra (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Its just really worrying to realise that the only evidence that can be cited are its being mentionned by non Libyan sources. I was previously more confident that there had to be some public sources other than the description on websites and news media quoting the FBI assertion and the findings of three judges in a juryless trial. It seems I was naieve in such a confidence now.92.235.178.44 (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you would expect a country to be the most reliable source about whether an individual is acting as an intelligence officer on their behalf; there is a strong motivation to deny that relationship, both for the country and the individual. Under the rule of law, courts are taken to be correct until another court overrules them. This isn't perfect, but it is better than anarchy. There is also a sophomoric cynicism around government intelligence agencies, but they are right more often than they are wrong and the conclusion of an investigation is likely to have many facts that support that conclusion. Again, not perfect, but I'd trust it in the absence of research that challenges the conclusion. Celestra (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

its not the country Celestra, its the evidence gathered from the country. Thats what I was getting at, as that would include for instance, records of his work etc. How do we know that the FBI were right in their claim? Im surprised to discover that their stating it is the only source that wikipedia can trace all its cources back to. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The academic who succeded in persuading Colonel Gaddaffi to allow the trial wasnt convinced of the factualness of that conclusion and he can offer evidence to the general public as to why not. My point on the talk page is that, even if it is going to be asserted to be a "fact" due to the "anarchy scenario" you outline above, some cross examination of the veracity of the assertion should be there for all to read and decide for themselves. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We aren't here to investigate whether the sources are correct; we are here to present claims made in those sources in an encyclopedic manner. WP:NPOV drives us to present mainline claims in proportion to their prevalence. Fringe claims with substantial prevalence may get a small mention, but not even footing. If you have such sources, present them and try to find a place in the article to include them. Celestra (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem remains that the bold statement and reference to a magazine using a juryless trial's decision based on assertions by a hostile prosecutor without any earlier evidence as to his actually working in Libyan intelligence needs improving. It misleads the reader into a false sense of certainty as to its actualness, when nobody can or at least most readers cant know for certain whether or not it is a fact. Im not saying what the solution is, but it needs improving to be more reflective of the reality as to his biographical details prior to the FBI involvement. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

More on Al Megrahi
Not sure whether you answered the previous comment. It is not easy to see what belongs to what if you write question and reply entirely different places. Anyway, I see that a conflict was started, where the wild CyberFox and the reluctant you are making changes back and forth. Why not calmly quote NYTimes and BBC, add "(according to FBI)" and be happy?

Just for fun I did some Original Research. A reliable source, Wikipedia :-) Abdul_Majid_Giaka reports "His testimony was used to determine that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, a LAA employee working in Luqa airport, was an officer of Libyan intellegence." - bad that the author cannot spell, but apart from that, there are also other sources that state the same thing. A messy source is http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cia-agent-gives-lockerbie-evidence-698514.html See also http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/08/22/world/main226769.shtml See also http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ab/abdul_majid_giaka.htm So, if we do not quote NYTimes / BBC then we can quote less reliable sources perhaps closer to the truth and say that "(according to the CIA double agent Abdul_Majid_Giaka)".

In all cases it is completely unreasonable to just regard this as an established fact. Barbara81 (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved your last post here so that it will be with the reply. I am watching your page, so I will see if you reply here. I'm not sure you understand our purpose here. We are not a source of original thought; we are an encyclopedia. We take information presented in reliable sources and present it in a balanced, neutral way. The balance is in proportion to the prevalence of the viewpoint. Your original request would have watered down the view presented in the majority of the reliable sources; to make it appear to be a minority view rather than the accepted view. Nothing in what you have written since has had any bearing on that. I am not not interested in arguing "truth" with you or your IP friend. This is not an outlet for "truth." Please either read the rules and start contributing to the encyclopedia in a useful manner or find a more appropriate outlet for expressing yourself. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You ask "I'm not sure you understand our purpose here". Yes, I do. Very precisely. "We are not a source of original thought". Precisely. We only state what is found in reputable sources, and give references to such reputable sources.

Now doing so becomes more and more difficult in time, because Wikipedia is a good source of information, and many people quote Wikipedia. This means that in cases of doubt one must be very careful, so as to avoid circular dependencies.

There is a claim, doubted by some, denied by at least one, that Wikipedia makes. But "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". Today it is not. Something is claimed as a fact. It may be true, it may be false, it certainly is not verifiable. In the lead this claim is made unsourced, further down two references [1] and [2] are given, that add "according to FBI" and "according to the prosecution". So these two sources do not claim it to be a fact. It is very easy to find reputable sources that similarly add "according to FBI". That would be a completely acceptable way of proceding. You say that this is a minority view. But it is the view of the reputable news sources that we quote. All good news sources state this with a qualifier "according to ...". So, according to the Wikipedia rules, we should slightly modify the text in some way, to make clear that not everybody believes this to be a fact. Some members of Parliament in Scotland, some judges, some lawyers have expressed other opinions.

Then how should this slight doubt be represented? You say "Your original request would have watered down the view presented in the majority of the reliable sources". Somehow I feel that my original request would make Wikipedia agree with the majority of the reliable sources. (And with other Wikipedia articles.) But I can see what you mean, in case you are talking about the leader. Further down the same statement occurs, where it probably would be more appropriate to insert a remark. Myself, I would prefer to see inserted "(according to the FBI)" sourced with the NYTimes and BBC refs I gave earlier. But in fact we have the judges verdict on file, and although NYTimes and BBC are reputable sources suitable to quote, in fact the judges clearly indicate the source of their belief, see verdict, mainly last sentence of [43], where the judges say "we are unable to accept Abdul Majid as a credible and reliable witness on any matter except his description of the organisation of the JSO and the personnel involved there". This is why a reference to Abdul Majid Giaka also is a well-sourced possibility. It is what the judges say themselves.
 * Barbara81 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Verifiable means that one can go to the source and see that the source said what we claim, not that what they said was "true". The rest of what you say appears to be a rehash of what we have discussed many times. A few sources choose to identify that the FBI, or the prosecutor, said this and the court agreed. Others simply state the claim without saying where the information came from. Whether we approve of this as the "truth" or not, the viewpoint that he is a former intelligence officer is widespread. A slight doubt should be expressed as a slight doubt, if it is a significant enough viewpoint to be included at all. A mention in the Background section, at best. It does so little to inform a reader that a person in this situation denies being an intelligence officer; if you believe him, of course he denies it; if you don't; of course he denies it. It would be more useful to have a source that challenges the claim, then that dispute could be presented (but not participated in.) Celestra (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)