Talk:Abdelbaset al-Megrahi/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

Death

There seems to be a lot of reverting going on. In the interest of cooperation, let's leave the death bit out until we have better confirmation. It doesn't hurt the encyclopedia to wait a few hours or a day or so before adding the information, but it could hurt it if we add the information and it turns out he is alive. When I added the reference I added, it was before his lawyer denied the claims. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You just got ahead of me with this post....lol...I just revered the last one, because there was the date of death already.. Im keeping my eye on SkyNews for now. Norum (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect this has stopped now, with both FOX and SKY mentioning that it's just a rumor, with the denial of the lawyer.[1] Amalthea 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sky News have now confirmed that Megrahi is dead.Vandagard (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just when I proteced it for a few hours. :| Got link? I don't see it. Amalthea 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link. Vandagard (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that seems outdated though. FOX News,Sky News, andReuters say it's in dispute, which is what the article currently says. Amalthea 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The single-sentence on the Fox News website is their original report about the Sky News story. Sky have now retracted their story. They are not reporting it in their broadcast channel - either in to-camera reports or through the scrolling text headlines; and the online report has changed behind all recognition into a report about an investigation by MPs about Al Megrahi's release; in which the lawyer's denial is buried deep down ("denying reports" rather than "denying Sky News' reports"!). Fooey-fooey-flop-chops (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Megrahi’s case was ‘wrongful conviction’"

• http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/megrahi-s-case-was-wrongful-conviction-1.993935
• "The UK relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing have stepped up their campaign for a full public inquiry into the atrocity, after they hired one of the country's best-known human-rights lawyers to plead their case"

I have added a ref to the Gareth Peirce article, but we probably need to update 2 or 3 other articles, eg. Jim Swire.--Mais oui! (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

'Flaws' in key Lockerbie evidence

• "An investigation by BBC's Newsnight has cast doubts on the key piece of evidence which convicted the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi."

--Mais oui! (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted the section 213.84.53.62 added concerning this to more fairly reflect what was in the source, but I'm not convinced that section merits inclusion based on WP:WEIGHT. A TV news organization reporting on it's own "investigation" into whether the fragment was genuine or not is good for ratings, but it is, by its nature, not a view that is going to be widely held in reliable sources. Celestra (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the 20 tests undertaken by Newsnight was not the sole evidence raised. They also pointed out that Megrahi was identified as the purchaser of the clothing by someone who already know that he was accused of the crime. They also discuss the technicalities of the evidence, including that it was unlikely that the bags would/could have been rerouted several times on in order to have ended up on the flight in question. 81.159.89.147 (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the scared quoted 'flaws' out of the section heading. These seem to be intended to imply that the flaws identified are not valid ones. This may, or may not, be the case - but it seems pretty POV to put this in the title. It now reads "Newsnight investigation into key Lockerbie evidence". 81.159.89.147 (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The scare quotes were taken directly from the title of the source, so I would characterize it as accurately representing the source, not POV, but I'm fine with simply removing the word flaws altogether. Remember, though, that this section is about a piece of television entertainment, not a serious scientific investigation. Celestra (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)