Talk:Abdelbaset al-Megrahi

Background

I moved the background section to the top, to improve the sequential flow of the story, which I expanded a bit. But I am wondering about Megrahi's very early back story, seems a lot is missing there

There is no mention in the article of his father or any siblings. It doesn't say whether his upbringing was rich or poor, or what academic qualifications he holds. Any biography should cover such basics. Crime researcher (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

US charges

I think that this article goes into far too much detail concerning the US eg. putting him on the FBI wanted list, etc at the expense of discussing the Scottish aspect. After all, it was in Scotland, not the US, that he was eventually brought to trial.

Xdamr^talk 22:31, 3 February 2007

Indeed. It's rather solipsistic atm. Hakluyt bean 18:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

Latest news is astonishing: 'A Swiss businessman on Monday said that a key piece of evidence in the Lockerbie trial was faked, following a French press report that one of his employees had lied to Scottish investigators. ... In fact, Mebo employee Ulrich Lumpert has now admitted that the device he handed over to Scottish investigators was one he himself had stolen from the company, rather than part of a batch delivered to Libya in the 1980s.

"The exhibits were manipulated and used to make a link between Libya and the attack," Bollier said. http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=21895

Brian Souter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.226.132 (talk • contribs) 07:47, September 3, 2007

Inconsistent name

The subject's name as given in Arabic (Abdelbaset Mohammed Ali Al Megrahi) in this article does not match his name as given in the Latin alphabet (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi). I do not know which version is in error in order to correct it. If someone who does know reads this, please attend to it. 66.41.209.16 (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Scottish Court in the Netherlands invariably used the Latin alphabet version (see for example Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi). Newspapers in the United States and Britain use all sorts of variations including that in the title of this article: Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi. The Arabic version is seldom, if ever, used.PJHaseldine (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Megrahi’s appeal

Story in today's Sunday Times:

It emerged last week that Lord Fraser, the former lord advocate who charged Megrahi, was unaware that a fragment of circuit board linked to the bomb had allegedly been moved to an FBI lab in Washington for analysis ahead of the trial and conviction of Megrahi.

Fraser said he would not have agreed to the step because it could have left the crown open to accusations at the trial that the circuit board could have been damaged or tampered with.

It will be for the Appeal Court to determine the significance of the alleged movement of the fragment in 1990, which may form part of Megrahi’s appeal.

--Mais oui! (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Release

It's being reported today that Megrahi is likely to be released on compassionate grounds in the next few days due to his having terminal cancer.[1] I've started a section on this subject currently headed 'Release' although a different heading may be more appropriate. Parts of the article also need updating since they were written at a time when significant events were expected to occur, but haven't been followed up. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Suffering from terminal prostate cancer, with less than three months to live" should read "Suffering from terminal prostate cancer and expected to live less than three months", as there's no way to know at this point whether or not he has three months to live; that number is merely an estimate. (I'd edit it myself, but the page is locked to anon edits.) --76.121.3.11 (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Kenny MacAskill stated yesterday that Megrahi has less than three months; some media sources have stated (less than / about) three months. If that was stated this month by a doctor who has examined him, that should be stated in the article. Life expectancy is impossible to precisely determine, but if a doctor said < 3 months, it is almost certain he will die this year. Crime researcher (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bias?

It seems a little weighted towards Al-Megrahi being wrongly convicted, just does not read neutral to me. I've subsequently tagged the article, to see if anyone could take a look and see if they can do anything about it. Cheers. Sky83 (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the article:

...the SCCRC concluded its four-year review and, having uncovered evidence that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred...

So, giving some considerable weight to doubts about his guilt would be justified. Count Iblis (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That is true, but it stands that he is a convicted mass murderer who took the lives of hundreds of people. To have the majority of the article weighted towards his alleged innocence/appeals etc seems disproportionately biased in his favour. While I know that there is obviously a distinct article on the bombing, it doesn't quite seem appropriate that the article about the guilty party is leaning heavily towards innocence. In light of the dropping of the appeal, it seems somewhat unlikely that he will be exhonerated, so it's not even as if Megrahi's status, in a legal sense, will alter (in terms of innocent vs guilty, rather than incarcerated vs free). I'm not sure what to do to alter the article, which is why I tagged it, to see if anyone else had any ideas. I accept entirely what you're saying, and I even agree, I just, like I said, find that focus disproportionate. Sky83 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This legal speak is very cautious. "A miscarriage of justice could have occurred" means in reality that it is practically certain that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. So, he is convicted, yes, but a mass murderer, no, the guilty party, no, most likely not. Concerning the future, nobody knows, but there remains a strong pressure to reopen the case. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the legal status is that "A miscarriage of justice could have occurred" does not, by any stretch, mean that the occurrence of such a miscarriage is "practically certain." If you have evidence to that effect, I would be happy to see it. It only means that there is sufficient reason to justify the time and expense of further investigation. We should also be wary of political pressures on the relevant actors in this case, coming from both directions, and to me this diminishes the weight of several quotations in favor of al-Megrahi; there was significant pressure on law enforcement agencies to put someone away for the Lockerbie bombing, and just as surely there was just as much pressure on Libya and its friends to exonerate him, due to the sanctions and damage to international reputation and etc. This is why I think less weight should be given to quotations and more weight to the hard evidence.

Perhaps the article would read a little less biased if it actually included some of the relevant points from the original case against him? It doesn't really tell a reader why he was convicted in the first place. -12.70.92.162 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. First, the weight of the evidence in favor of a conviction should be given. The page says nothing about what he is accused of doing and why the judges reached the conclusion they did. Second, even though reasons have been given to doubt the conviction, responses to those reasons should also be given. Presumably those who remain convinced of al-Megrahi's guilt, especially those who were involved in the initial trial, have offered responses to the allegations of a miscarriage of justice. Al-Megrahi was convicted; this much is fact. Voices should be heard that believe the conviction was wrong, and voices should be heard that believe it was right. It is partly the absence of this secondary response that gives the article a prejudiced feel to me.

Having read the entire article, I must agree with Sky83 and 12.70.92.162. How many times is the phrase "miscarriage of justice" used here? There is actually very little information provided to show a miscarriage of justice took place (One of Hans Koechler's reason for doubting the validity of the conviction: "A retired Scottish police officer has signed a statement confirming that the evidence that found Al-Megrahi guilty was fabricated. The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, testified “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan” for the bombing of the Pan Am jet (Scotland on Sunday, 28 August 2005)." [2]. Also, there is virtually no information about the people who testified against Megrahi at the trial in this article. After reading Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, it seems that there were several people who tied Megrahi with the alleged IED that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103, none of whom are mentioned in this article. I must agree that the article appears slanted to make Megrahi appear innocent, as 213.84.53.62 seems to think based on nothing more than an anonymous opinion, despite his conviction by 5 judges who actually heard the evidence against him, much of which seems to have been classified by the CIA. Obviously, if you think the CIA is behind the bombing in the first place, you might doubt the evidence they are giving to the judges, but this article should let people make up their own minds. Instead it hides the ball. I suggest adding relevant information surrounding the trial.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What did he actually do?

This article contains absolutely no information about what his role actually was in the bombing. Did he put the bomb on the plane? Did he make the bomb? Did he fund it? What? Surely this is one of the most important things and it would be nice to know. 86.22.78.112 (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Do? Most likely he is completely innocent. But here is what he was convicted of doing.

The charge narrated that the appellant, having formed a criminal purpose to destroy a civil passenger aircraft and murder the occupants in furtherance of the purposes of Libyan Intelligence Services, while acting in concert with others, did certain acts. These included the purchasing on 7 December 1988 of a quantity of clothing and an umbrella in shop premises known as Mary’s House at Tower Road, Sliema, Malta; entering Malta on 20 December 1988 at Luqa airport while using a passport with the false name of Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad; residing overnight at the Holiday Inn, Tigne Street, Sliema, using this false identity; and placing or causing to be placed on board an aircraft of Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt am Main Airport on 21 December 1988 a suitcase containing said clothing and umbrella and an improvised explosive device containing high performance plastic explosive concealed within a Toshiba RT SF 16 radio cassette recorder and programmed to be detonated by an electronic timer, having tagged the suitcase or caused it to be tagged so as to be carried by aircraft from Frankfurt am Main Airport via London Heathrow airport to New York. The charge went on to state that the suitcase was thus carried to Frankfurt am Main Airport and there placed on board an aircraft of PanAm flight PA103 and carried to London Heathrow airport and there in turn placed on board an aircraft of PanAm flight PA103 to New York; and that the improvised explosive device detonated and exploded on board the aircraft while in flight near to Lockerbie, whereby the aircraft was destroyed and the wreckage crashed to the ground and the passengers, crew and residents were killed. The appellant’s co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was acquitted of that charge.

213.84.53.62 (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph should be added to the Convicted section of this article. Claiming he is is most likely innocent, without presenting any evidence to that effect, nor saying who you think did do it, does no good for anyone. What are you claiming Megrahi actually did do, and can you present some evidence to back up your claim, which is contrary to what the court proceedings proved? Crime researcher (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Should be added" - you are welcome, this is Wikipedia.

Concerning evidence for guilt - there is practically none. Concerning evidence for innocence, there is a lot of indirect evidence, enough to convince many people, including me. One of the main witnesses has now declared under oath that the evidence he gave was fabricated. But you should honour your name and do your own research.

Concerning what the court proceedings proved: it proved that with US and Libyan officials present and directing the Scottish judges, any desired outcome could be arranged. There are many newspaper articles to read, and there is the report of the UN observer http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm that you might wish to look at.

Don't forget the context: there had been a long and severe economic boycott of Libya, and Libya, US, UK arranged that Libya would produce two people, that Libya would pay damages, and then the boycott would be ended. This context explains why the defense at the trial withdrew. It was not part of the agreement that the defendant should be found Not Guilty. See also Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation_from_Libya.

213.84.53.62 (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying "most likely he is completely innocent" and there is "practically" no evidence for guilt only further reinforces, for me, the impression of bias. Were you, 213.84.53.62, one of the authors of the article? I am guessing so. Historical/biographical pieces like this should simply set forth the story, with the facts and allegations that favor both sides. Unfortunately, at present, this reads like an effort to exonerate al-Megrahi, using the veneer of objectivity that Wikipedia provides. You seem to assume that those who speak in favor of innocence are all telling the truth while those who speak in favor of guilt (for instance, the Scottish judges) do so only because of political pressure. Is the world really that black and white? Also, there are two further points I think should be made. First, there is a difference (as one of the quotations states) between innocence and an improper conviction. To say that he was wrongfully convicted, or even that there was a miscarriage of justice, is not necessarily to say that he is innocent, but that proper procedures were not followed. It's entirely possible that there was improper prosecutorial conduct, for instance, and yet al-Megrahi indeed was guilty, or was involved in the bombing in a different way. My only point is that we should not leap from "law enforcement misconduct" (if there was any) to "completely innocent" without an awful lot of evidence to cross that gap. Second, when it comes to al-Megrahi's recent release, his guilt or innocence is immaterial. One response to the release is to say, "He may not have been guilty anyway." Yet a person convicted of mass murder is presumed guilty until proven innocent. It is almost always possible for interested parties, after the case, to raise questions about the conviction. It's also possible, in the court of public opinion, to put forth little nuggets of 'evidence' that would fall apart if they were examined by an investigator. So, absent a hearing where the evidence is fully laid forth, or absent some truly dispositive piece of evidence coming out (showing that he was not in Malta, for instance), I think it's most reasonable to continue to give the ruling of the seven judges greater weight than it is given here.

If there was such an agreement between the US, UK and Libya, why did the whole thing take years, and why present two defendants, yet acquit one of them? An intergovernmental conspiracy to fix things would have been much quicker and more clean-cut. Can any of the people who claim Megrahi is innocent, suggest which people they believe were involved in bombing the plane? Crime researcher (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of IRAN or to be more specific, Iran Air flight 655 ? I think you call it payback! --Cyber Fox (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Iran had motive, but so did Libya (as did a few other countries). The problem with the Iran theory is lack of evidence. Crime researcher (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This applies throughout the investigation, there was little evidence of anything. Megrahi's conviction was based on such controversial evidence and the longer the SCCRC looked at it the more evidence of conspiracy and tampering they found. It is a pity that this will not be revealed in court but then again, it may be yet.--Cyber Fox (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the conviction based on the testimony of the tailor who sold him the clothes, based on his IDing a piece of charred cloth from the wreckage? I've never understood though, whether the tailor saw the cloth among the wreckage on TV and dialed it in, or whether Scotland Yard interviewed every tailor in the world to see if they could ID any bit of cloth found? Info about what rare blend or pattern of fabric this was isn't explained either. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The latter actually..LOL You must remember that the tailor saw Megrahi on TV before he identified him. And also remember the $2million dollars the Yanks paid to the tailor to help him remember which btw was never revealed to the trial judges! --Cyber Fox (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not assume the truth of the claim that he was paid $2M for his testimony. Perhaps there is solid evidence to this effect, but I have not yet seen it. The tailor could have been pressured to say this. I'm not saying the tailor is lying. I don't know. But that's the point--neither do you. I fear that some have come to this case with a predetermined notion of who the good and (especially) the bad guys are.

The £2 million bribe paid to the witness by the CIA has been confirmed by the press since 2007. See Lockerbie witness 'given £2m reward' in the Scotland on Sunday for example. It was part of the evidence the SCCRC judged to be "unsafe". Josh Keen (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. Well, there should be something in the article about the case against him. Simply saying nothing because it is ridiculous is POV by way of omission; I can't think of any other bio article about a notable criminal where his whole link to the crime and the case against him isn't at all explained. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted a {{Main|Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial}} into the Background para so that readers can see where to find the charges, evidence and conviction in detail. --Red King (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did the Libyan gov't pay over a billion dollars compensation to relatives of Lockerbie victims? And at the same time deny complicity? This fact should be put in the article, whatever you make of it.

It is anyway a solid fact, unlike a supposed CIA bribe to one of the witnesses. But if that is true, what motive would their be? Doing the mullahs a favor does not seem a likely thing. 84.69.173.228 (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

More neutral paragraph

I rewrote the paragraph regarding his reception upon his return -

"The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain as a dying man — and landed in Libya amongst national praise.

A crowd of thousands gathered at Tripoli airport to welcome Megrahi as he stepped down from Muammar al-Gaddafi’s private jet. He was accompanied by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi. Last year, Gadhafi had pledged to bring al-Megrahi home. Within minutes Megrahi was whisked away for a meeting with his elderly mother."

The previous version being:

The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain as a dying man deserving of compassion — and landed in Libya a national hero.[59]

A crowd of thousands, many waving Scottish flags and others throwing flower petals gathered at Tripoli airport to welcome Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi as he stepped down from Muammar al-Gaddafi’s private jet to the strains of patriotic music. He was accompanied by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, who was dressed in a traditional white robe and golden embroidered vest. Last year, the son had pledged to bring al-Megrahi home and raised his hand victoriously to the crowd as they exited the plane. Within minutes Megrahi was whisked away for a meeting with his elderly mother.

Sound good to everyone? Falcon8765 (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Certaily not, a watered down US PC version no doubt.--Carriden (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell me if I am wrong but I understood Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia of facts, not fiction?--Carriden (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not the 'watered down US PC version', it's the WP:NPOV version. It includes all of the relevant facts without unencyclopedic imagery that will do nothing but inflame opinions about the subject. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire section is completely unnecessary. This is an article about the man's entire biography -- we don't need the chronology of the day he was released. From WP:NOTNEWS: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Leo (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I figured it would be a big edit war to try and remove it all together. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh but we do. The day of his release is one of the most significant days of his life and to try to demean this editorial is an insult or maybe just your own NPOV. The facts, which by the way all have citations, are what the reader wants to know, not your watered down version.--Carriden (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have a section devoted to his release and the subsequent reactions; this section could easily be merged with that in far more precise and encyclopedic fashion. *Edited: just realized I confused two names. My mistake, though I stand by the fact that this is completely unweighted and WP:NOTNEWS. Leo (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it should be added back in as in some ways wikipedia is news. It even has a current events portal Portal:Current events/2009 August 20. The reaction in his release and arrival in Tripoli is important to the overall article as it bespeaks the controversy around his conviction, the role Libya played in the bombing, and how it is received in the nation he calls his home. The release is an important aspect of why he is notable in the first place. Plus it is well sourced. Peace rkmlai (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain and landed in Libya to national acclaim.

A crowd of thousands, many waving Scottish flags and others throwing flower petals gathered at Tripoli airport to welcome Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi as he stepped down from Muammar al-Gaddafi’s private jet to the strains of patriotic music. He was accompanied by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, who was dressed in a traditional white robe and golden embroidered vest. Last year, the son had pledged to bring al-Megrahi home and raised his hand victoriously to the crowd as they exited the plane."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkmlai (talk • contribs)

I don't disagree with anything you said. However, besides the first sentence, I see nothing in that quote of any encyclopedic value. It simply describes the situation when he arrived in Libya, which would be perfectly apt in a news article or on Wikinews, but I think that first sentence "bespeaks" to everything you mentioned just as dutifully. Therefore, I see no reason why the first sentence shouldn't be included in the Release section as opposed to having its own. Leo (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The original section read like some nationalistic press release with a semi-gloating tone. It sounded to me as if it was either the latter or intended to incite some moral outrage against the Libyan government or something. To clarify, I have no personal opinion on the overall nature of this individual's detention; I hadn't even heard of him until I came across this article while huggling yesterday. Falcon8765 (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

How about: "The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain and landed in Libya to national acclaim to a crowd of thousands, many waving Scottish flags, as he stepped down from Muammar al-Gaddafi’s private jet" rkmlai (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, if included in the Release section:

Immediately following the announcement, Megrahi, having served eight years of his life sentence, was escorted by Strathclyde Police to Glasgow Airport where he boarded the private jet of Muammar al-Gaddafi. Arriving in time for what was also the celebrations marking the anniversary of Lybia's revolution, Megrahi was met with national acclaim and crowds of thousands, many of whom waved the Scottish Flag.

Some of that seems still seems a little unnecessary to include (like the clause with the strikethrough), but I'm not complaining. I might also include the fact that this "hero's welcome" was in direct defiance of Obama, though at the moment I'm too sleepy. Good night! Leo (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Claiming Megrahi is deserving of compassion is certainly not neutral. It is a contradiction that a convicted mass murderer could apply for compassionate release, when he clearly never cared about compassion. The SNP consider him worthy of compassionate release, but that does not mean he does deserve it. Most of the people in the UK do not support his release. Crime researcher (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that most of the original section was a copyright violation or at least plagiarized from its sources. Amalthea 11:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed another copyright violation from the "Arrival ..." section. If people find it important and want to include the information in a way that doesn't violate copyright (WP:COPYVIO, WP:PLAGIARISM) they are of course welcome to do so. The quote which was copied verbatim, but not marked as a quote, was: "One of those who assisted him, clutching his right arm, was a middle-aged man dressed in white with a brown waistcoat and waving a Libyan flag in celebration. He bore more than passing resemblance to Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the 53-year-old man who, eight years ago had stood alongside Megrahi during their eight-month trial at Camp Zeist, in the Netherlands.", from news.scotsman.com. Amalthea 12:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Wording of Tripoli arrival section

Could I get an outside opinion on the wording of the Arrival in Tripoli section? A proposed rewrite is in the previous talk page section.

Reactions

It seems to me that there is too much fucos on the negative reactions to his release. There have been many people who were supporting the release, including relatives of the victims of the crash. This should be given more coverage 82.46.49.45 (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I must agree but we all know why that is. My original contribution may need tweaking but in essence it is de script and to the point. This is of historical and encyclopaedic value at its best to the uninformed reader. This reader wants facts about Megrahi and his homecoming is integral to that. He didn't get a scheduled flight and the bus home, he had a huge jet airliner put at his disposal by the head of a Sovereign African State and had a hero's welcome on his arrival. Like it or not, that is what occurred and that is what should be incorporated in the article about Megrahi. --Cyber Fox (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Most Libyans support his release; most Britons and Americans do not. A small minority of family members of those killed at Lockerbie support his release, due to their belief in his innocence; they are outnumbered multiple times by those family members who believe him guilty and are horrified at his freedom. If the statistics about this can be found, they should be added. Reaction from other countries should be mentioned in the article: people from 21 countries were killed that day, so it is relevant to those countries. Megrahi's release is on the main page of German Wikipedia, which does not even have a Megrahi article. Crime researcher (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This collapsed part of the discussion has been archived, as irrelevant to the improvement of this article. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry Crime researcher but you need to do some more research! Most British and Irish people know only too well what certain States around the world are capable of when the going gets tuff! They also know that poor old Megrahi was stitched up not only by the West but by his own people. He and his co accused only attended the trial in order to clear his tarnished name and reputation...it didn't work out that way as he was dumped on from a very great height (sorry about the pun!). The majority of right thinking people in the British Isles do support his release and for the very same reasons explained by Kenny MacAskill yesterday...its called compassion and we do it in this neck of the woods. We don't jab needles into people or apply 40,000 volts to them as some uncivilised States do. The bereaved in the US are for the most part brain-washed by the US establishment against anything Libyan. --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC) If a substantial proportion of people in the UK support his release, someone needs to produce evidence to that effect; everything I've seen says only a small minority wanted him released. He has only been released because he is terminal, not because of anything else. His release does not show that MacAskill or any of the authorities in the UK believe him innocent. If he didn't have cancer, he would still be in prison. The SNP did not have to release him, it wasn't due to new evidence casting doubt on his conviction. They chose to release him, knowing he'd get a hero's welcome in Libya. It is a decision that has more opponents than supporters, and has damaged Scotland's reputation, especially in regard to relations with the US. 'Soft on terror' is not a label that Scotland or the UK as a whole want. Crime researcher (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC) OK, I can see where this is going. The Scottish Government made the right decision, they made it in full knowledge that the majority of civilised people in Scotland support them in this. They also know that he is innocent. --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Without a reliable source to support either side, this is pointless. Unless anyone can provide one, there is no need to continue this thread. Amalthea 11:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC) The sneeringly fatuous talking point that "its [sic] called compassion and we do it in this neck of the woods" does not require composition of a response, because Senator Kerry an the Los Angeles Times have so utterly demolished it already.[3][4] This cold-bloodedly inhuman decision pulls the concept if "compassion" inside out. The "blinkered interpretation of 'compassion' took no account of the enormity of Megrahi's crime or his refusal to acknowledge his guilt," and Mr. Eleven Days MacAskill showed "no compassion for relatives of the 270 people killed when the jet exploded over Lockerbie." By MacAskill's standards, Myra Hindley was gypped: if 11.5 days for each victim is the going rate, she should have been out in three weeks.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Crime researcher wants to know what the majority of a population thinks. Seems difficult to ascertain, and also a bit irrelevant. People tend to form opinions based on what they read in the newspapers. Of much greater significance is the conclusion of the SCCRC, who spent years studying the case, that "a miscarriage of justice could have occurred". But it is not difficult to find many official European sources doubting the correctness of this conviction. Even the German Government has voiced doubts.
Randomly picking a few on-line polls with not too few respondents: Is release ok? www.scotsman.com 47% yes, 53% no, www.irishtimes.com 43% yes, 57% no - contrast with the US www.foxnews.com 4% yes, 95% no.

Since you mention German Wikipedia: "Einige Beobachter glauben, dass das Akzeptieren der Verantwortung eher ein Geschäftsabschluss war, mit dem Ziel der Aufhebung der Sanktionen, und nicht das Eingestehen von Schuld. Im Februar 2004 sagte der libysche Premierminister Schukri Ghanim der BBC, dass die Entschädigungen als „Preis für Frieden“ und als Schritt zur Aufhebung der Sanktionen gezahlt wurden." (Some observers believe that accepting responsability [by Libya] was more an agreement in order to end the sanctions than an admission of guilt ...)
Read, if you read German, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockerbie-Anschlag - it contains some good information.

"Among law enforcement and legal experts who've looked closely at the Lockerbie case, there's an array of skeptics who question that the Libyans are the real culprits, or the most important ones. Those skeptics include several of the United Kingdom's top legal experts, and the Maltese and German governments." http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/lockerbie/story/printable_story.html This link also discusses the opinion of the CIA man who handled the case at that time. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A very good post 213.84.53.62 if I may say so, why not register and come out from behind your IP ? --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Users are encouraged to get usernames, but are in no way required to have them to contribute. Falcon8765 (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The former Roman Catholic priest in Lockerbie whose own home was damaged by wreckage from the crash has written in support of the compassionate release of Megrahi in an article in the Herald.[5] Liddle18 (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect description of al Megrahi's arrival in Libya

While there were thousands of supporters, mostly young men, at the airport before al Megrahi arrived, they were ushered away by officials and there were only a few hundred when he actually landed and disembarked the aircraft. Libya was given harsh direction by many western government leaders to downplay the celebrations and they took heed, if only at the last minute. It would be unfair to portray the celebration for his arrival differently than they occured, no?

Thanks a lot, wikipedia is great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.117.138 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The point being that they were there, ushered away or not. --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Source it SGGH ^ping! 19:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Libyan intelligence officer

The article text says "... is a former Libyan intelligence officer". However, there does not seem to be any independent proof of this. He himself denies this. Most newspapers are more careful and describe him "A former head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA) and director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli" and "worked - according to the FBI - for Libyan intelligence services". The source [3] given for his status, does not in fact contain this claim. {{editsemiprotected}} Maybe one could replace "is a former Libyan intelligence officer, head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines, and director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli, Libya" by "was head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA) and director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli. According to the FBI he worked for the Libyan intelligence services". Barbara81 (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The link provided mentions that prosecuters claimed he was a Libyan intelligence officer, but they would say that seeing as they were...well, prosecutors surely?! If its going to state categorically that he was a Lybian intelligence officer, then a proper source should be provided. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The only source Ie been able to find is the following

"Intelligence officer

He described himself as the former director of Libya's Centre for Strategic Studies, a role which - the FBI claimed - gave him cover to act as an intelligence officer for the Libyan Intelligence Services (JSO).

Despite Megrahi's denials, this was accepted by judges who tried him. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7728434.stm

and again, it only reiterates an assertion from the accusers of his being one. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I wondered at this myself, it seems that he is described as that in Court proceedings. Look on the negative side, if he wasn't a Libyan intelligence officer than why did he not say so?? --Cyber Fox (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well according to the BBC article, he did deny the assertion. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. The source, Aljazeera.net, does not state that the FBI asserted this; it states that the prosecutor described him this way. It also states that the court accepted the prosecutor's description; which makes this an accepted fact. I also checked some independent sources from a google search for 'Al Megrahi'. The first source on the list after Wikipedia, news.aol.com, included "The 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence officer served only eight years of his life sentence." Celestra (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Its only an accepted fact in a narrow sense (IE its believed by enough prominent and influential groups despite there being no other evidence than there believing/accepting each others assertions?) of accepted fact then. There is doubt from for instance Robert Black, who arranged the European trial in the first place, as to the factual acceptability in that narrow sense. I thought it meant it was a fact in the factual sense and not in the one youve described. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If he denied the description it suggests that the description was an assertion as to him being something he denies. Other than the descriptions given by the prosecution, what earlier verification is there for this description being used (say in Libya ) to describe Mr Megrahi? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

IE who was the original source for the description of Megrahi in a way that he denied and what evidence can be given for their objectivity seeing as the CIA at the time were less than objective in describing him surely? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

When I say CIA I mean the prosecution rather. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What Im getting at is the problem of different sources using each other as their authority to quote the same assertion and give it the semblence of a fact? If the original description was by the prosecution in Holland, then isnt this a worrying basis for its established veracity as a fact? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no other source than the prosecution, who refers to the FBI. Some refs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-19214/Al-Megrahi-The-Lockerbie-bomber.html Al Megrahi was said to be a former director of Libya's Centre for Strategic Studies, and chief of airline security for Libyan Arab Airlines. The FBI alleged that was a cover, and that Al Megrahi was in fact a Libyan intelligence officer

http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ab/abdel_basset_ali_al-megrahi.htm He was alleged by the FBI to be a Libyan intelligence officer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7728434.stm He described himself as the former director of Libya's Centre for Strategic Studies, a role which - the FBI claimed - gave him cover to act as an intelligence officer for the Libyan Intelligence Services. Despite Megrahi's denials, this was accepted by judges who tried him.

NYTimes: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/abdel_basset_ali_al_megrahi/index.html At the time of the bombing, Mr. Megrahi was head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines, the state carrier. But 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 in finding him guilty. Barbara81 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Its factualness is therefore more ambiguous in regards to "being a fact" than its description as such would indicate. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said over at Barbara81's talk page, the current source and the majority of other sources I found while servicing this edit request support the current text and do not support the requested change. The current source, for instance, does not mention where the prosecutor obtained the information, just that the court agreed with it. There are a handful of sources that choose to be overly cautious in describing his relationship to Libyan intelligence, but even most of those go on to acknowledge that the court accepted that he was indeed a Lybian intelligence officer. Changing that requires a significant ammount of reliable sourcing that claim he is not a Lybian intelligence officer, not simply a few source that fail to claim that he is. Celestra (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we know what evidence was offered to the three judges that helped them reach this conclusion? Is there any evidence of him working as an intelligence officer as opposed to evidence of three judges accepting the accusation by the FBI? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If the other sources have the court acceptance as their original source, then the question needs to be asked, what prior source can be offered as evidence for the factual accuracy of the initial FBI assertion surely? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If Richard Dawkins accepted that the Archbishop of Cantebury believed the assertion by the FBI that Jesus was the son of God, should that be stated to be a fact on his page? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

These statements have nothing to do with improving the article. Reliable sources are presumed to be correct. Where there is disagreement between reliable sources, we present that disagreement without participating in it. If you can find reliable sources that claim he is not a former Lybian intelligence officer, we can see how to fit those claims into the article in a balanced manner. Until then, please read WP:TALKNO: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumed on what basis? If the source has merely asserted a belief, then their reliance on it does not make it a fact in layman's terms. I find it deeply misleading to find that the reference provided doesnt give clear evidence of his work as an "intelligence officer" and was dissapointed at this lack of evidence. My discussion of the topic is quite specific. Its a cross examination of the legitemacy of putting the statement that he was an intelligence officer there without proper verifiable evidence. You might as well use BNP pamphlets as evidence for the "facts" they assert regarding racial theories. Thanks. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is a high probability due to the references being at the bottom of the page, that (as with the details on packaging) most people wont check them all out, and blunt repetitions of the facts they are the references for will lead them to presume that the references provided must be substantial (say a dossier of his work as anintelligence officer in Arabic or photographice evidence, who knows, but not just a repetition of the opinions agreed upon at a juryless trial asserted originally as far as we can tell by the FBI). 92.235.178.44 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

" If you can find reliable sources that claim he is not a former Lybian intelligence officer, we can see how to fit those claims into the article in a balanced manner."

That's back to front. No evidence exists other than assertions by the FBI. No evidence exists showing that he was an intelligence officer, merely evidence of it being believed by the three Scottish judges chosen for the trial and various magazines and news media quoting it as a fact.it remains an assertion, unless verifiable evidence can be cited. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It really does appear that there is no such evidence. There was talk that the two accused used their jobs as cover for their intelligence work but we all know where that got them with the second accused...acquitted! There is no such evidence so I seriously think that any references to such should be prefixed by 'alleged'. --Cyber Fox (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not our job as editors to weigh the evidence and determine the truth. We merely present what is found in the reliable sources in a balanced way. You will not find many reliable sources which continue to say 'alleged' and 'accused' after the individual is convicted. Seriously, a change of that sort would be difficult to interpret in an NPOV way. Celestra (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes you will. There mostly in Arabic (and possibly French) buit there no less reliable than the American and British and Australian magazines and news broadcasts that use the claims of the FBI as a source for their belief without evidence. Please dont be culturally biased in your assumptions. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The point Im getting at is why presume that English language sources are any more reliable than others, when its clear to most people how differentally "facts" are treated/maintained created through their differing citation on various news media. Hence why the Left and Right claim bias in the media in the United States and John Stewart lampoons Fox News. If we were to take on board the views of Chinese, Libyan and English language media, it would equally be a fact and a non fact as the reliable sources would be self contradictary (ie not in reality reliable as sources). Our job as editors, is to cite a real source showing that the statement that he was an intelligence officer can be verified and not just agree with the opinions of the FBI and three judges. (What evidence did the judges see/hear/witness? thats the kind of evidence necessary for such a statement as him being an intelligence officer in a wikipedia article rather than a media news article)92.235.178.44 (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible new section

I'm thinking we may need to add a new section entitled 'Aftermath' or something like that since there's likely to be a lot more to come with regard to this situation. We have the possible involvement of the Westminster Government at some level, Peter Mandelson's meetings with Saif Gaddafi and a recall of the Scottish Parliament to discuss the release. Some of this could be covered in the existing sections possibly, but here's a few ideas anyway. I'd be interested in people's thoughts on this. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

In the days following Megrahi's release and return to Libya speculation began to mount as to the possible involvement of the Westminster Government in the Scottish Government's decision, particularly after Saif Gaddafi claimed that Megrahi's case had been discussed during business talks with the UK, and after Colonel Gaddafi thanked Gordon Brown for "encouraging" the release. This prompted Downing Street to confirm that Mr Brown had discussed a possible release with Gaddafi during the G8 summit in Italy in July 2009, but that a letter sent by Mr Brown to the Libyan leader had stressed, “When we met I stressed that, should the Scottish Executive decide that Megrahi can return to Libya, this should be a purely private, family occasion.” Mandelson

It was also claimed that Business Secretary Peter Mandelson had met Saif Gaddafi on at least two occasions at which a release had been discussed. Mandelson confirmed this, but said that he had told Gaddafi that any release was entirely a matter for the Scottish Justice Secretary. He went on to describe as "offensive" any suggestions that a release had been linked to a trade deal with Libya.

On 20 August 2009 it was announced that the Scottish Parliament would be recalled the following Monday to discuss the release. An earlier call for it to be reconvened had been dismissed. Former First Secretary Jack McConnell said, "The Scottish Parliament has a responsibility to take action to repair some of the damage done. I believe that the Scottish Parliament should make clear that this decision was not made by the people of Scotland and that it does not have the endorsement of the Scottish people."

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a talk page. Hi Retroguy, this is a talk page, please refrain from adding multiple links as you did in your proposed new section above. Please sign your edits as this is helpful to other users. --Cyber Fox (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I see a section has been started, so I'm going to be bold and add the information i collected earlier. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually if the repercussions from the release continue we may have to consider splitting information regarding the release into a separate article - something like 'Megrahi release controversy' perhaps. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the way this is panning out God knows what will fall out of the tree if it is shaken enough! --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Extended content
References

Conviction section is actually only about appeals

{{Editsemiprotected}}

Please change the section entitled "Conviction" to "Appeals" -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, hope it is OK and an acceptable format, certainly is easy enough to follow. --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Much better. I think if you added {{expand-section}} under the new trial section I can wait out the rest of the semi-protection period patiently. :) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped in too quick, I am relatively new to all this. Can you add the'expand' on my behalf as I haven't done this before? --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again, stupid me, you cannot do it. I'll have a go. --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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 with Wikipedia: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. Cheers TheRetroGuy (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."[6] --John (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Barlinnie Prison

The prisoner was held in Barlinnie Prison for the early stage of his time in Scottish prisons. I don't know for how long he was there, but it was for a few years. I see no mention of this on his page, which just mentions Greenock.

GRJ (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are quite correct in this. You will find that there is a lot of Press coverage about his time there as he had to have two cells knocked into one to accomodate his special needs (agreed with Libya prior to trial). Have a go at putting it in in a suitable section or maybe create a new one. --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added this detail as requested. --John (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Spinout

The material on the reaction to Megrahi's release doesn't really belong in the article on Megrahi, and although it does belong in the article on MacAskill (the reaction, after all, is to MacAskill's decision), a group of editors there have prevented its inclusion. Per WP:SPINOUT, I have therefore created Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi; although it's a content fork, there's clearly no need for it to be a POV fork. I have incorporated the additional material from this article and added a redirect.15:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Good thinking. It might be an idea to transfer some of the information relating to the aftermath, possible oil deal, etc, to that article as well. This one is getting quite big and events surrounding the release are likely to continue for some time. Alternatively, depending on how long the fallout continues, and what the possible implications of it are, we may need another separate article relating to that. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but there was a whole mass of material there, and since I've not been involved in the development of this article, I didn't want to risk blunder in and upsetting the applecart. If editors here feel that it's as simple as just transferring that section whole to the release article, be bold. :)- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)