Talk:Abdelbaset al-Megrahi/Archive 4

Serial killer wikiproject?

Why is Megrahi in the serial killer wikiproject? I thought that terrorists aren't generally viewed as serial / spree killers.Andjam (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

He shouldn't be, by definition, a serial killer murders one after the other....not all at once. Suggest you have it removed immediately. --Cyber Fox (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, so I've removed the template. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

He is a convicted mass murderer. The project applies to mass murderers and spree killers as well as serial killers. Pan Am Flight 103 is listed in Mass murder#Mass murder by terrorists. Therefore I believe he fits the project's criteria; perhaps the project should be renamed. Crime researcher (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would second that. --Cyber Fox (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough if the project applies to other types of mass murder. I'll put it back in. TheRetroGuy(talk) 13:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Quite apart from the doubt that exists about Megrahi's guilt, the perpetrator of this crime does not match the profile of a serial killer. --John (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked at WT:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force#Terrorists?, it's in the discretion of the project members whether they want to include terrorists or not. Amalthea 14:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The serial killer task force isn't specifically for serial killers, but for articles relating to serial killers, mass murderers and spree killers. It doesn't need to be renamed, its scope is spelled out. Also, whether the project has an interest in a given article doesn't equal classification as a serial killer. That's sort of like saying that a female who acts wouldn't be covered by WP:ACTOR because the project covers actor. Having said that, however, the project hasn't taken a specific interest in terrorist groups, mostly because of overlap withWikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and the specialization of that project. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem like the better project for this article. --John (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article is misleading and should be renamed, irrespective of the later qualification of the name. The terms serial killer and mass murderer do not necessarily mean the same thing. Suggest you have a new look at this. --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with your main point but I would point out female actors are often called actors not actresses so there's no reason even from the name why Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (the shortcut is obviously irrelevant) shouldn't cover females who act. Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is all in the way you decipher the word Mass. It could mean all at once or a whole lot over a period of time. Maybe a better description could be sought. --Cyber Fox (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Megrahi - Free Use Licenced Image

Does anyone know of a free use licenced image for upload to the Megrahi article and which would comply with Wiki policy?--Cyber Fox (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It might help to ask at Libya's wikiproject, if you haven't already. -- 209.6.238.201(talk) 03:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't, didn't realise there was one...thanks! --Cyber Fox (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a specific Libyan Wikipedia, but there's a picture in use on what appears to me to be the Arabic Wikipedia.ar:File:Lockerbie-al-Megrahi-420x0.jpg Not sure about the copyright status, but good luck anyway.TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

209.6.238.201 referred to WP:WikiProject Libya. The image used at ar-wiki doesn't have a source, and unless it gets one it will be deleted there August 28. I've seen that specific image used by Al Jazeera, so I imagine it's a copyrighted stock photo.
Amalthea 14:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Retro, my Arabic ain't what it used to be so maybe I will pass on that one ! --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Must admit mine's not great either. :) Oh well, was worth investigating anyway so thanks to Amalthea for explaining everything. I think this article could do with a picture or two so hopefully someone will find one. CheersTheRetroGuy (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Medical

"In parliament on Monday, Dr Simpson said that his reading of the notes suggested Megrahi may have eight months left, not the three months or less on which Mr MacAskill said he based his decision."[1] --John (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr Karol Sikora (three months estimate) who also mentioned a possible ten year life span also pointed out the other day on tv that he ACTUALLY said that the CHANCES of him lasting ten years were around one percent or less, and he was annoyed that this was repeatedly left out of any quotes.82.6.1.85 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

I believe I can see what the difficulty is. This Dr Richard Simpson is actually the Labour MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, a former Minister with a very big axe to grind. I think we all know what his motives are! --Cyber Fox (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"The calls for details of the doctor's employers, experience and qualifications have been echoed by Labour health spokesman Dr Richard Simpson, who is a former associate member of the British Association of Urological Surgeons and its Prostate Cancer Working Group." according to the article. I just go by the sources, have you got better ones? --John (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No criticism intended. I just want to point out that the 'highly eminent' Dr Simpson has an alterior motive in trying to discredit Kenny MacAskill and the SNP administration. I don't know where you are or what you know of Scottish politics but I can assure you that there is no love lost between Labour and the SNP after the latter booted the former out of power for the first time. Just trying to help John! --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Discredit the SNP? How dare you suggest they are unable to do it themselves? The SNP does not posses a problem of efficiency.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of claims in the article about Megrahi making a "remarkable recovery" with implications that he would survive. However, on investigation these claims all appear to have originated with the Daily Mail. For non-UK editors: the Mail is a tabloid newspaper with a reputation for printing lies and deceptions; it should not be considered a reliable source without corroboration from other places, and in this case other sources (cited in the article) are strongly disagreeing. If you look closely at what they have done, the Mail has picked up on the fact that treatment has been stopped because it is no longer effective at controlling his cancer, omitted the reason, and spun it as if this was a recovery and not just the terminal stages of the disease.

I have snipped out the most blatant one of these claims, but editors should watch out for other variations on the theme and make an extra effort to verify sources. --Asuffield (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced characterisation of his occupation as an intelligence officer as "disputed"

The lede and info box are not good places to introduce unsourced doubt that he was an intelligence officer. It would be better to add some some sourced content to the body of the article which disputes this. Then, if this view gains parity with the common view, the lede and infobox can be changed to neutrally reflect that fact. Celestra (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is no evidence to sustain this assertion. Megrahi himself has always denied these claims. If there is no evidence the qualification should not be used. --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that is not the point at all. The point is that the reliable sources we use for the article refer to him as a former Libyan intelligence officer. Our opinions on whether that is a fair assessment are moot. If there are reliable sources that claim he is not an intelligence officer, we can add content to the Background section which is in proportion to the prevalence of that view. Most of the sources I have read which include his denial mention it in passing: "he denies this, but it was accepted as true by the court", which could not be fairly summarized as "he denies this." Please present policy-based reasons why this unsourced disclaimer should be added to his description. Celestra (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Celestra. --John (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So where are these reliable sources? FBI, CIA? Face it, there are no such sources, reliable or otherwise. This whole invention is simply that, an invention to discredit the man. Maybe the History Channel is your source? Wikipedia is all about confirmed reliable sources and no-one has yet to provide any for stating that Megrahi was an Intelligence Officer. Until such time as there is a verifiable source the mention of him being a former Intelligence Officer should be either removed or have a qualification added.--Cyber Fox (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It was accepted as true by the court, according to the reliable sources. If you have better sources that show he was not, bring them here and we can look at them. --John (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The court may believe whatever they wish but that does not make it true, the point being that there exists substantial doubt as to the validity of such claims (see Megrahi appeal SCCRC). where is your primary source? You have to provide corroboration not the other way round. Just because it has been said and has been put on this article some time ago doesn't make it valid. Again, either remove or add a rider or qualification. --Cyber Fox (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If a substantial doubt exists, there will be a number of reliable sources expressing that doubt. (Our opinions about the existing sources or "truth" do not matter.) Either present the sources that support your edit or drop the issue. No offense intended, but many of your arguments display a lack of understanding about Wikipedia. If you want to confirm what we are telling you about how Wikipedia works, read the policies yourself or ask others about them at the village pump.Celestra (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there are no sources which say he was an Intelligence Officer...unless you know differently...am still waiting. --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) As far as I can see, reliable sources seem to state the following:

• The FBI and prosecutors claimed that he was a Libyan intelligence officer.
• Al Megrahi disputes this.
• The court "accepts" the prosecutors' claim.

As regards the court's actual findings, the judgment states:

• "We accept the evidence that he was a member of the JSO, occupying posts of fairly high rank. "
  

--Boson (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Any third party corroboration? Naturally the investigators are going to say that, they have an alterior motive after all.--Cyber Fox (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)--Cyber Fox(talk) 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful for your fellow editors to continue to point out the fact that reliable sources say he is a former Libyan intelligence officer if you are going to continue to ignore how Wikipedia works. You need to understand what we mean when we say 'reliable sources'; it has nothing to do with truth or evidence or corroboration, it just means that the books (or magazines or newspapers or whatever) are "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Your current approach of rejecting claims in reliable sources based on some subjective criteria of your own is disruptive and you need to stop. Celestra(talk) 20:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As Boson correctly points out above, the FBI and the prosecutors are the only primary source for this allegation. Hardly independent and reliable. --Cyber Fox (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But, as those allegations were upheld in court and have never (as far as I know) been refuted, I think we have to report them. No? --John (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

On the basis that an appeal was pending, we cannot hold up anything stated by judges as matter of fact.--Cyber Fox (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Times poll relevance?

As the source states this poll was based on a survey of "515 adults aged over 18 by telephone on August 26", I wonder just how worthy of inclusion it is. Polls are not inherently notable. --John (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You might have a concensus of 1 but please do not revert my edits unnecessarily. The Poll stands as an insight into what the ordinary Scot thinks and is relevant to this article. As time goes by this may change and an update can then be given.--Cyber Fox (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't even spell consensus, which is interesting. Did you previously edit under another name, by any chance? Anyway, the onus is on you to explain why such a tiny poll is worthy of mention here. Can you? --John (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You want to lecture me about spelling..aye right! --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a poll of what a small section of the scottish people think and that is relevant to such an important decision. You are the one who put in the Scotsman poll so you should know the answer to your own question. That's twice now I have had to tell you this. you keep asking questions, the answers to which you already know!

What is Wiki policy on ridicule?? --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not add any poll to any article. It is something I think I have never done in four years editing here. You may need to reexamine the article history so you have some clue what you are talking about. The onus is on you to explain why such a tiny poll is worthy of mention here. Can you? --John (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I retract that but you certainly agreed with it being there and contributed to its edit history if my memory serves me correctly. --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I believe the polls to be of little use. Agree with John and will remove the relevant sentence.--Cyber Fox (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)