Jump to content

Talk:Abdelbaset al-Megrahi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Health & 'five weeks'

[edit]

Anyone can edit this article, but it's also possible no one will. Statements like 'five weeks after' are obsolete almost as soon as they are written. We can add and change cited statements and should. The latest news is here [1] and says: "THE grieving sister of one of the Lockerbie bomber's victims last night vowed to confront the freed killer - and FORGIVE him. But lawyer Lisa Gibson is locked in a desperate race against time as Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi lies close to dying of prostate cancer" so if anyone wants to add the current situation, that would be appropriate. I may add it if I have time. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged"

[edit]

Why exactly does the first sentence say, "Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi (Arabic: عبد الباسط محمد علي المقرحي‎, `Abd al-Bāsaṭ Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Maqraḥī; born 1 April 1952) is an alleged former Libyan intelligence officer, head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines, and director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli, Libya." As far as I know none of that's alleged. And, even if it is, should it mention that he's a convicted mass murder/terrorist at the start? I mean that's what he's notable for, not being a former intelligence officer or the head of Libyan Arab Airlines. Yes I know this Wikipedia and I can edit things and everything but I'd like to know why the article is written that way and if there's an actual reason for it. I'm not trying to start an argument about his guilt or innocence but I really think that, as he was convicted and has never been pardoned, it should be written differently. ViewTinge (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the source, it certainly appears to be alleged. There are two sections above discussing this. I'm not sure if it matters about the order of the first paragraph, but there may be a reason for it. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but he's been convicted and never pardoned so he's not alleged. If he had never been convicted then he would be alleged but since he's convicted he can't be alleged. However much doubt there may be about his innocence, it's factually inaccurate to say that he's alleged. I mean sure, there's doubt, but that doesn't erase the fact that he was convicted. Also, I was wondering why the most important part about him isn't mentioned until the second sentence. It just isn't as important that he's allegedly a "former Libyan intelligence officer, head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines, and director of the Centre for Strategic Studies." He may be he may not be but shouldn't it be mentioned at the beginning what he's been convicted of? He would probably still be marginally notable of he hadn't been convicted of what he was convicted of but I don't really think the mentioned things are more important and deserve to be in the very beginning. Again, not trying to rehash on his innocence or guilt, simply wanting to discuss the formatting of the opening lines. ViewTinge (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Alleged' is about being an intelligence officer, etc. It's not about anything else unless, and that's possible, I've missed something. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"luxury villa" and now "boosted"

[edit]

I've twice reverted an editor for adding a supposed quote identically made by MacAskill and Salmond. He's reworded that slightly but still includes the phrase "luxury villa" and now 'boosted', which I don't think are backed up by the sources. He won't use online sources unfortunately, which makes this trickier. Offline sources are valid, but it's odd that a search for luxury villa or boosted life expectancy in Google News turns up nothing. We need to keep our phrasing closer to our sources. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Lockerbie bomber was freed from jail and sent home to his family in the knowledge it could prolong his life"... "First Minister Alex Salmond also said the bomber's life expectancy had been boosted by sending him to his luxury villa in Libya." (Roden Alan; Picken Andrew, "The 'Lie' Behind Lockerbie Bomber Release", Scottish Daily Mail, Front Page, continued on page 5, 23 July 2010) Similar statements are made in today's Scottish Daily Mail (front page news, under the headline "Got Something to Hide, Alex?", continued on page 5) and Scottish Daily Express ("MacAskill says 'No' to US Lockerbie inquiry", page 4) --tb240904 Talk Contribs 20:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently that's the reporter's hype, the Daily Express quotes Salmond as actually saying "“If you take a decision in good faith, you don’t regret it. “You can only take a decision on the basis of the evidence at the time and the decision we took was with due process and in good faith. “It’s not unheard of for people who have been released on compassionate grounds to live longer than the three months specified.” No 'luxury villa' there. We should use some of the quote by him instead of an interpretation by a reporter. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Al-Megrahi is not living in a "Luxury Villa"? Almost every newspaper is using this phrase, or a similar one, to descibe his current living conditions. --tb240904 Talk Contribs 10:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying he's not from a wealthy family, I'm saying that earlier versions suggested Salmond/MacAskill had used the phrase. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release

[edit]

I'd like to create a new article on Al Megrahi's release. There is a great deal of information available on this in the media at the moment, due to Al Megrahi living 8 months longer than the prognosis of 3 months which led to his release on compassionate grounds. This is a controversial topic, so I would like to know the community's opinion before I go ahead with it. Thank-you --tb240904 Talk Contribs 17:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world would you want to create a duplicate article? You can't do it. Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I had searched for an article on his release but could not find one. I see now that there is in fact an article on the subject and will edit that. In future, however, please try to be more helpful. I don't know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet as I don't edit that often and I've found you very unhelpful over the past few days, especially for an admin. I attempted to add what was, in my opinion, quite interesting news to the article and you removed it, instead of replacing it with what you found to be the actual words of the politicians or discussing it on the article talk page (which you did, eventually do, but only after I'd tried to add the content again, rewording it each time in response to your edit summaries). Here, you have simply told me I can't do something, rather than explain why (the fact that there is already a separate article). --tb240904 Talk Contribs 17:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I really didn't understand what you meant, as it's linked in this article as 'main article'. I was trying to give you the opportunity to find a quote, and really hoped you would, with an online link. I did say " We should use some of the quote by him".
By the way, the release article has problems - that huge chunk of text, a copy of Salmond's letter, certainly doesn't belong there. The 2 articles also duplicate themselves too much. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

I don't think the article belongs in both these categories and the sub-category, but the anonymous IP from Colorado cares about adding them enough to edit-war, and I don't at present. Any other opinions? --John (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong in murderers of children, that's for murderers deliberately targeting children. I've removed it. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Why is his "Anglicised" name Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi when the Arabic transliterates as `Abd al-Bāsaṭ Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Maqraḥī? In other words, how come the "Ali" and "Mohmed" get switched around? 143.252.80.100 (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, not here I'm afraid. We're using the form used in English language sources, as per our guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury villa redux

[edit]

This is also being discussed on a user's talk page, but I think it belongs here. My comments were: Having read that the villa had to be upgraded to have mod cons, I do wonder how 'luxurious' it was before. And not to mention his house arrest, while saying he's living in luxurious surroundings -- that's clearly wrong. It should be clear that although this man is living with his family in decent surroundings (I was about to right 'in comfort' but that wouldn't be correct unless he's pain-free, even then it's pov), he isn't free. See one of the sources, [2] which says "According to the terms of his release from Scotland, Megrahi is not allowed to leave his family’s home in the New Damascus suburb of west Tripoli. The house has been converted to include all mod cons, and is under 24-hour guard by the Libyan authorities." I can't find any source that says Gadaffi built his house, by the way. And the upgrade comment certainly makes it highly unlikely that both that statement is correct and the statement that the house was built shortly before his arrival back in Libya.


NPOV means that we have to be careful about how we are influencing readers' perceptions. Harping on 'luxury' whlie ignoring 'house arrest' is doing just that. And that's beside the fact that we know newspapers aren't exactly accurate all the time and many are giving this their own spin. I'm not denying that he comes from a prosperous background, don't get me wrong, it's the way we approach this that is the issue. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury is a subjective term everybody seems keen to use. However, the Scottish Daily Mail says he lives in a three-bedroom house with other sources saying there's up to seven people living there (all relatives and presumably no live-in servants or carers). Guests have to stay in a tent in his garden. These are objective quantifiable matters we maybe should include, but nobody seems to be putting in these details, perhaps they don't fit in necessarily with most people's idea of "luxury". Zagubov (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't let the details/facts get in our way. :-) I agree entirely. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like to stick with what's in sources because there's usually a good reason why it's in there but if luxury and prosperous seem like loaded terms to you then fine remove them as long as you restore the rest of the two sentences. By the way the "bought by the Lybian government" and the "built shortly before his arrival part" is in one of the sources, read them once more.--Chrono1084 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's in the sources, so is updated to all mod cons. Are you suggesting it was built without mod cons? So which is it? Bought by the government, built by the government without mod cons and then refurbished? Or even perhaps their home all along? Where the sources disagree, maybe since it isn't crucial and we should just ignore it. Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it was bought with or without mod cons but the source says bought by the Libyan governement. Which sources disagree?--Chrono1084 (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"still erroneously stating that a Libyan-paid doctor"

[edit]

IP editor: The reference you are supplying is an example of a paper which you claim is "still erroneously stating..." something. I have no opinion on whether your claim is true or not, but I can not validate your claim with that source. You need to supply a source which makes the claim that some papers are still erroneously stating something. Otherwise the claim is original research. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right but to be coherent you'd have to delete the UPI source as well cause it's the same thing.--Chrono1084 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for any problems I've caused; I was the IP poster (had a problem logging in). The UPI source is different as the claims of the persistent misreporting were themselves made by another quoted source in the article (at least the STV one and maybe others too). However can you please help me get this straight: I'm not sure I'm understanding it fully, as it seems to have implications for wikipedia articles where media items/texts etc form part of the subject matter.
Would this mean that mentioning that a newspaper article had a headline saying (for a non-controversial example) "Water is Wet" we couldn't use that article as a source but instead we'd need, say, another article which said that article had that headline? Or, as a real example, if a book said that humans had 44 chromosomes (which many did for a while, due to a miscounting fiasco which was endlessly repeated in print without checking) we couldn't say that that first book erroneously claimed humans had 44 chromosomes without first finding say a second book that claimed the first book said that?
The potential consequences for articles looks enormous, and I don't just mean this one. There's other articles that would crumble to bits if we tried to apply this consistently. Zagubov (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way I would take it is that the headline would be fine to support the statement that water is wet, but not to support a statement that some papers have obvious statements as headlines. Likewise, we would need to find a reference somewhere which points out that some texts incorrectly claimed 44 chromosomes to make that claim. Merely pointing to an example of an error and reporting on that error is original research. How would a reader validate the fact that 44 is the wrong number as opposed to the right number at a different time or a choice within a set of numbers any one of which might be correct. Celestra (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Zagubo: no, it's the same thing the UPI source also doesn't say "was still erroneously stating that a Libyan-paid doctor was used as the basis for the release decision" nor "UPI was still reporting the other version in August 2010".--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's so many press inaccuracies about this issue I don't blame anyone for getting mixed up! I didn't mean to imply the UPI source claimed Dr Sikora was used to justify the release decision; plenty of other news items do that, but this one states (about line 11) he could live for ten years, making it a short and sweet example (among many) of what Sikora claimed was extensive misquoting, in his Scottish Television interview. By the way, that Scottish Television source, to my chagrin, was July not June 2010 and I do apologise for this, as I'm embarrassed to be caught joining in the seemingly endless inaccuracies concerning media coverage on this issue.
I'd happily rewrite the sentence to say something along the lines of "in August 2010, UPI stated he could survive 10 years" which, I hope, should be in keeping with the referencing and citing system used in this article. Zagubov (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your wording proposal won't change the fact that it's original research but I don't see this form as being damaging to the article, except the fact that it's UPI centered. But having other things to do elsewhere, I won't touch it anytime soon and if I do you I'll talk about it first . See you.--Chrono1084 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi → Abdelbaset al-Megrahi — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC) The "Mohmed" bit isn't needed in the title, neither is the "Ali" since he's almost always referred to, by my choice of new title. The order of the "Mohmed" and "Ali" remains suspect as well. "Megrahi" on it's own is correctly used to refer to him, in the article and "al-Megrahi" would be more accurate when dealing with a whole name in the title. It's just been stuck like this due to it being protected, the current title is really clumsy. John Cengiz talk 03:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Irrelevant quotes in introduction -What doctors said about what doctors said

[edit]

The introduction contains an irrelevant rambling quote and needs trimming.

The opening paragraphs should be succinct relevant details about the man, not what doctors that never met him (or even met anyone else who had ever met him) said about what other doctors said about him.

If anyone can demonstrate relevance, then they’re welcome to find somewhere else in the article it might belong, but these guys are 3000 miles away and over a year late with their wisdom to deserve a quote in an opening paragraph.

Also the three months prognosis is well out of date, it was always a median survival and never an upper limit Zagubov (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for re-write

[edit]

Does anyone else think that this article gives the (mistaken) impression that Scotland behaved reprehensibly throughout the release while the UK and the US were hapless horrified innocent bystanders and /or victims?

Now that Wikileaks seems to substantiate pretty much most (maybe even all) of what the Scottish government claimed, while undermining many of its critics both in the UK and the US, do we agree that at least sections 7, 8 and 9 need a substantial rewrite (as we all care about restoring neutrality in this article)?

Should we go to the NPOV forum before thinking of changing it ourselves? All options are open- happy to discuss! Zagubov (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly framed

[edit]

Why is there no section on this? We've got Gareth Pierce's article in external links but not used in the article, and it was mentioned in the Independent this month [3], by Alexander Cockburn last year [4]. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point. He's a Libyan national but a Scottish convict and the Scottish, UK, Libyan and global press is awash with speculation and doubt about his conviction. Why on Earth is this not covered in the article? Zagubov (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see:
--Mais oui! (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to make the article more factual and neutral in this respect. I hope you will join. History teaches (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Lumpert's affidavit and other problems with the verdict

[edit]

What about Mebo AG engineer Ulrich Lumpert's affidavit in which he confessed to having himself stolen the key piece of evidence used against al-Megraphi?

Former Mebo employee, Ulrich Lumpert, confirmed that as an electronics engineer he had produced all of the firm's MST-13 timers. Lumpert agreed that the fragments shown to him in court "could be" from that timer and was asked to confirm his signature on a letter concerning a technical fault with the prototype MST-13 timer. The trial was then adjourned until 12 July 2000.

On 18 July 2007 Lumpert admitted he had lied at the trial.[12] In a sworn affidavit before a Zurich notary, Lumpert stated that he had stolen a prototype MST-13 timer PC-board from Mebo and gave it without permission on 22 June 1989, to "an official person investigating the Lockerbie case".[13] Dr Hans Köchler, UN observer at the Lockerbie trial, who was sent a copy of Lumpert's affidavit, said: "The Scottish authorities are now obliged to investigate this situation. Not only has Mr Lumpert admitted to stealing a sample of the timer, but to the fact he gave it to an official and then lied in court".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_bombing_trial

From his affidavit:

"I confirm today on July 18, 2007, that I stole the third hand-manufactured MST-13 timer PC-board consisting of eight layers of fiber-glass from MEBO Ltd. and gave it without permission on June 22, 1989, to a person officially investigating in the Lockerbie case. [...] It did not escape me that the MST-13 fragment shown [at the Lockerbie trial] on the police photograph No. PT/35(b) came from the nonoperational MST-13 prototype PC-board that I had stolen."

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=385213&rel_no=1

William Blum quotes several legal experts about the verdict:

"I thought this was a very, very weak circumstantial case. I am absolutely astounded, astonished. I was extremely reluctant to believe that any Scottish judge would convict anyone, even a Libyan, on the basis of such evidence." -- Robert Black, Scottish law professor who was the architect of the Hague trial.{38}
"While the first accused was found 'guilty', the second accused was found 'not guilty'. ... This is totally incomprehensible for any rational observer when one considers that the indictment in its very essence was based on the joint action of the two accused in Malta."
"A general pattern of the trial consisted in the fact that virtually all people presented by the prosecution as key witnesses were proven to lack credibility to a very high extent, in certain cases even having openly lied to the court."
"The judges nearly agreed with the defense. In their verdict, they tossed out much of the prosecution witnesses' evidence as false or questionable and said the prosecution had failed to prove crucial elements, including the route that the bomb suitcase took." -- New York Times analysis.{36}
"It sure does look like they bent over backwards to find a way to convict, and you have to assume the political context of the case influenced them." -- Michael Scharf, professor, New England School of Law.{37}
"As to the undersigned's knowledge, there is not a single piece of material evidence linking the two accused to the crime. In such a context, the guilty verdict in regard to the first accused appears to be arbitrary, even irrational. ... This leads the undersigned to the suspicion that political considerations may have been overriding a strictly judicial evaluation of the case ... Regrettably, through the conduct of the Court, disservice has been done to the important cause of international criminal justice." -- Hans Koechler, appointed as an international observer of the Lockerbie Trial by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.{39}

The problems described by these and other legal experts; Lumpert's affidavit; the Scottish police officer's sworn, corroborating testimony that the fingernail-sized key piece of evidence allegedly found in Lockerbie woods two years after the event was planted; the political circumstances of the case; and even the fact that Britain did its best to find a way to release al-Megrahi on "compassionate grounds" point to a politically motivated conviction. The article, minimally, has to better reflect these well-established problems and uncertainties. History teaches (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article, in fact, turned out to be more balanced than the introductory sections and a cursory reading of the rest suggested. I have suggested small modifications, especially to the opening paragraphs, and may suggest some more, but all in all, the article appears fairly neutral. History teaches (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Times: "Files ‘may prove innocence’ of Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi"

[edit]

The Times (London), Magnus Linklater, Marcello Mega - May 17 2011 12:33AM:

Plans by the former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to make public files relating to the Lockerbie bombing were welcomed yesterday by lawyers who believe they will prove that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted.

At the same time, however, Crown Office officials are gathering evidence from Libyan ministers who have abandoned Colonel Gaddafi, and who will argue that he ordered the bombing.

Ever since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back for a second appeal in 2007, doubts have centred on two pieces of evidence: the tiny fragment of circuit board linked to a timer device used for explosives, and the testimony given by the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, who claims to have identified al-Megrahi. Four of the six grounds cited by the Commission as reasons for re-opening the case relate to these two matters.

But even if Mr MacAskill’s attempt to have the Commission’s evidence published succeeds, there are two other grounds which remain shrouded in secrecy, and which may never be disclosed. They relate to documents provided by a foreign intelligence agency on condition that they were withheld from the defence and cannot be published. The UK Government conferred public interest immunity status on the documents, which means that, even if the SNP presses ahead with its plans, they may have to be withheld.

It is understood that they relate to the timer fragment and might offer proof of defence claims at the trial that the sophisticated timing devices, made by the Swiss firm Mebo, had been supplied to other states, not, as the Crown claimed, only to Libya.

Some legal experts argue that the refusal to allow the defence to examine these documents could lead to the conviction being quashed. A central feature of Scottish criminal law demands that the defence has equal access to evidence, and without that access a prosecution case should fall.

--Mais oui! (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Times: "Lockerbie bomber shows deteriorating condition to Scottish officials"

[edit]

  • "Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi used a video conference call with the officials responsible for monitoring his whereabouts to show a large tumour on his neck. The Skype call took place on August 8 after officials at East Renfrewshire Council became concerned about reports that he had moved from the accommodation that had been agreed with them, and sought to verify claims that his health had deteriorated. A source said: “The video link confirmed that he remained in the accommodation that had been agreed, and he also pointed to the new growth, which was clearly visible on his neck.”"

Lorraine Davidson, The Times, 18 August 2011 --Mais oui! (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coma and extrication

[edit]

Both these issues are notable now.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/31/lockerbie-bomber-near-death-pan-am-victims-families-don-t-believe-it.html

This is what the CNN reporter stated that you quoted in an interview +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday night, Robertson acknowledged the possibility that reality might not be as it appeared.

“You know, when you go into a situation like that you always think in the back of your mind, are they faking it?” Robertson said. “I saw Megrahi two years ago … He looked much better back then than he does now. And I really got the impression that his family were tense, nervous.” He added: “You got the impression that they were very low at that moment, really just sort of sitting in the room there, waiting for him, in a way, to die.”

Robertson continued: “When you looked at his skin, it looked very thin. When you looked at his wrists, they looked very thin. This did seem to be a man who is perhaps on his last days. But not being a doctor, not doing proper medical checks, you cannot sort of say with a hundred percent certainty his real state of health here.” +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You can also read the page that many notable people involved are dubious too. I think it should be mentioned too. 8digits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Propposal to Delete Irrelevant sections

[edit]

The section entitled "Calls for and comments on a return to custody" will be deleted unless anyone can demonstrate relevance. It's under Scottish jurisdiction, (not US/Libyan) and therefore is at least speculative /smacks of political grandstanding. The section entitled "Suggested links to oil deals" will be deleted unless anyone can demonstrate relevance. The accusations were speculative and never substantiated. These sections fill the article with political posturing and speculative claims and wil need extremely strong supporting arguments if they are to be retained Zagubov (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

"Megrahi was born in Tripoli and was educated in the United States and Cardiff, Wales."

I realise that it perhaps the least interesting aspect of his life... but where exactly in both countries was he "educated"? Maxjjazz (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdelbaset_al-Megrahi&oldid=1252291355"