Talk:The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie

Vincecan's assertion

Vincecan confidently asserted:

"The film was ultimately financed by the Libyan government as an effort to deflect criticism for its role in directing the sabotage of PA 103."

That assertion can only be allowed to stand if there is some evidence – no matter how tenuous – to back it up. Let's be hearing from you, Vincecan!Phase4 20:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

olol, Tiny Rowland is obviously a Libyan agent. LamontCranston 13:11, 09 May 2007 (UTC)

Official Account

To say that there is an "official" account is kind of a ridiculous notion, and an obvious attempt to marginalize a well-reported story. The Lockerbie bombing is well-covered by the press -- there are literally thousands of mainstream newspaper articles that describe the bombing and who is responsible. These are not part of any "official" arm of any US, UK or any other government report, and to suggest that there is one "official" account is to minimalize the factual account in an attempt to artificially prop-up the conspiracy theory. That violates the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Giovanni33. The mainstream media were following the line fed to them by the US/British governments, see investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial. It is therefore better described as an "official" account.Phase4 10:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The term, "official account" far from being a "ridicoulous notion" is standard practice. Its also neutral, precise, and thus verifiable To change this to "conventional" adds in a POV. The press reports the official story. Its officials who determine the facts for consuption and publication, and its the official account that gets reported on by the mainstream press. The mainstream press are lapdogs for the official version. But, its the offical version that is the issue here, not some pov notion about what is "conventional" or not. That is the vague notion that is best officially left out. heheGiovanni33 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To assume that the mainstream press are "lapdogs" for the "Guvment" is a naive notion unsupported by reality, and reflects a complete misunderstanding of the role of journalism in U.S. culture. Maybe it's that way in your home country, but in the U.S. journalists are immediately suspicious of government explanations, thrive on conflict, and would give their left testicle to break a story that would embarass an Administration spokesman. Here we give Pulitzers to newspeople who uncover those kinds of stories, and fire and publicly humiliate Toadies who are lazy enough to mimic the Government line. You are profoundly misled.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing could be futher from the truth. IN theory, yes, that would be great, but in practice we have lapdogs, and cheerleaders for the govt. and conformity ot established power and the ruling class. I suggest you read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent,", and Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media for an intro to a study of this question. Since I'm an educator, here is an exerpt from the book for you to read for free: [1] When you are done with that I have a dozen other works so you can open your eyes to the reality of the so-called "watch dog" "independant" journalism in the US. Until then profoundly mislead, indeed you are.Giovanni33 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's really the scientifically established account. It's neutral, precise and verifiable. --Tbeatty 05:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that says the official account is scientifically established?Giovanni33 06:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now edited the text saying that "the film disputes the conclusions reached by the official investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103". Problem solved?Phase4 10:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, he can just read the Propaganda Model right here on wikipedia, or he could try and understand that as corporations their primary goal is to maximise profit, minimise cost and increase market share. LamontCranston 09:37, 1 June 2007

Complete Rewrite

I've given this article a complete rewrite (compare these two versions) to help it pass the current AfD. Mainly I've added a bunch of new sources, which have led to a new section on when it was screened or not screened and what some of the reaction to the film was. I also re-wrote the intro, basically adding new material, and deleted the section on South Africa, which did not seem pertinent (that could be re-added into the US and UK gov reaction section--though the section would have to be retitled--as long as there were sources, however I do not see the need for that).

The "Resume" (why is it called that? Is that a British term for a synopsis of a work of art?) should probably be reworked, but I have not seen this film and am not going to do it. It would also be great if people could copy edit this article and make sure the sources were formatted well enough--and of course make any other changes as they see fit. I think this article has gone from pretty crappy to pretty decent, and hopefully the notability of this film has now been established beyond a doubt. I had never heard of this thing before and it was interesting to learn about it, though I have no opinion about the content of the film.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A valiant effort, which I have tidied up and expanded upon. The PCAST statement (My government and yours know exactly what happened. But they're never going to tell) demanded to be mentioned, as did the revelation of the South African connection. The article must surely now warrant something better than a "stub": perhaps a "B" rating?Phase4 16:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Phase4 for some good corrections, and I agree this has definitely gone beyond a stub but I'm not sure where it would fall (maybe someone from the Wiki Films project could give it a rating).

I'm still not sure about the significance/importance of the so-called "South African connection" even after reading the Reuters piece. I don't think it warrants its own sub-section, as the idea that there was something fishy going on is incredibly speculative (additionally, the section as it stands now does not even really explain what happened, i.e. that high-level South African officials switched flights at the last minute). My recommendation would be to put that and the "controversial statement" section in the "resume" section at the beginning. That section seems to be designed to go over the key arguments of the film, and the South African bit and the "controversial statement" would, I think, both fit in there nicely in abbreviated form. Incidentally since there is a Guardian story and a Reuters story for both of those statements they should be footnoted (I don't think linking to the Reuters story in an old talk archive is at all necessary). Finally, do you know why the first section of the article is titled "resume?" I'm not familiar with that word being used that way--it seems the section would better be title "synopsis" or "main arguments" or something similar.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Résumé, according to my dictionary, is a summary: let's not change just for change's sake! The South African connection, I agree, needs fleshing out a bit and I'll do that. Otherwise, the article looks pretty good, as it stands – thanks largely to you, Bigtimepeace: well done!Phase4 20:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and I'm glad you're happy with the additions. Good job with the South African section as it is much more clear now (though again I think the Reuters article should be footnoted and linking to it is unnecessary). I still think this and the "controversial statement" paragraph belong in the resume section though. They seem very tacked on at the end of the article, whereas they would fit well in the resume section which of course summarizes the main points of the film. Would you be averse to moving that material?

And I do still think the resume section needs to be re-titled. Resume as a "summary" is indeed a valid definition but it is fairly obscure (the main meaning seems to be the same whether in the US, UK, or Canada--i.e. it's akin to a CV) and will confuse some people (as it did me). Also the standard for documentary film articles on Wikipedia seems to be to say synopsis (see, for example, the articles on two recent political documentaries, Sicko and An Inconvenient Truth). I also think the whole resume/synopsis section should be reworked so it reads as a series of paragraphs rather than having a bulleted list in the middle. Thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully take your point and have changed resume to synopsis. The Reuters report has been footnoted, but I have left the "film's revelations" section as it is, in case any further revelations emerge and have to be edited in. Some other minor adjustments and referencing, but I've probably done enough for now.Phase4 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes following AfD debate

Let's not have a re-run of last month's AfD debate by subterfuge. Any changes to the article since 1 September 2007 should be discussed first and agreed on this talk page. I'm reverting the recent changes to allow such discussion here.Phase4 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about Phase4, although my apologies for my reversion as I did not realize that Noahcs's edit made changes beyond substituting a screen shot for a picture of Tiny Rowland (which is the only think I mentioned in my edit summary). However the other changes Noahcs made were incredibly cosmetic (capitalizing some words, wikilinking a couple of things, and fixing/changing a link to the google video of the film). Did you really have a problem with any of these edits? I certainly do not see how they were "a re-run of last month's AfD debate by subterfuge." I reverted to Noahcs's version simply because I think it makes a lot more sense to have a screen shot of the film than a picture of the financier (though I suppose we could have the latter as well, I just don't see the need). If you disagree please discuss, and also explain if you have a problem with the other more cosmetic fixes, though I would not think that you would.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now had a look at the other changes proposed by Noahcs, and agree that they are cosmetic and in no way "a re-run of the AfD debate". The screen shot is problematical though on a number of levels:

• It's small and indistinct
• Noahcs uploaded the image, but did not provide a fair use rationale
• The image has no licensing information

I note from the tag above that a screen shot is not a pre-requisite for upgrading a film/video article from "stub" to "start" class. So, unless the image can be enlarged with suitable rationale/licensing info, I would suggest we do without the screen shot.Phase4 15:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bone of contention

Bigtimepeace has inexplicably edited out all the previously agreed material in this article. I am reverting those edits and await an explanation from BTP.Phase4 09:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "all the previously agreed material in this article" and think that is a gross misrepresentation. The substantive deletions I just made (the first two edits were minor--we do need periods between U.S. and U.K.) removed material that you added on September 30th without any discussion. It was not agreed on by anyone and I only just noticed it. You cannot reprint the entire Francovich letter, or even a huge portion of it which you did. For one thing it is almost certainly a copyvio, and for another it quite clearly violates undue weight. Also it looks very strange to start out a "reaction" section with a reprint of a lengthy letter from the filmmaker--we're interested there in the reactions of others, obviously the filmmaker thinks his film is good. If you want to include something about the Francovich response I would trim it down to one key sentence and put it at the end of the reviews section. That would be more than fair.

I also deleted the section "UN observer at the Lockerbie trial." It started out "It is noteworthy" which is a sign of why it does not belong here (you should not have to explain that something is noteworthy, that should be self-evident). That material simply does not belong in this article which is about the film, it's revelations, reactions to it, etc. Kochler said nothing about the film, he was talking about the trial. It seems to have been put there because it agrees with the film's conclusions, yet you do not put in any information from official sources which, while not commenting on the film itself, disagreed with its conclusions. Thus including the Kochler info not only strays too far from the topic (the movie) it also violates NPOV.

I'm obviously happy to discuss both of these points further. Incidentally I still think the "controversial statement" and "South African connection" need to be in the synopsis section (it just looks bad to tack them on at the end and gives those points more importance than they warrant) and might move them there at some point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The "UN observer at the Lockerbie trial" was added by Max543 on July 10, 2007. I entirely agree that it does not belong in the article and you were right to remove it.

The "period" issue is a NAm thing. We in Britain don't think they're necessary and are happy with US and UK.

On the Francovich letter, I completely disagree. As a verbatim account by the film's producer, it is germane, pertinent and should be included in its entirety. To trim the letter down to one sentence, as you suggest, would be to emasculate it. In relation to the Francovich letter, I don't accept the copyvio idea; nor does undue weight seem applicable or appropriate in this case.Phase4 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Director, not producer. But what do you mean that you don't "accept" the copyvio idea? If that is a full reprint (and perhaps you can clarify that) of a letter published in a newspaper than it is a copyright violation. Letters to the editor become the property of the newspaper, in this case the Guardian--we simply cannot reprint them in whole or even in large part. If you want to use the letter at various points in the article that's fine, but it is wildly illogical to make it the first thing a reader sees in the "reaction" section (look at any article about a film in see if the first thing you see in reaction, reception, or other similar sections is a lengthy diatribe from the filmmaker). Reactions should come from people not affiliated with the movie, obviously. We can also include the filmmakers reaction to the reaction, and I think the first two sentences of the letter are good for that (the rest is a bit of a rant and quite frankly hard to follow at points, particularly the second to last paragraph). I would recommend including those first two sentences at the end of the paragraph which begins "The televising by Channel 4..." in the "US and US government" sections.

I did not realize it was standard in the UK to leave out periods in that abbreviation. If you want to change them all back that's fine, so long as we keep it standard throughout.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect! Allan Francovich was writer, director and producer of the film. As author, copyright of his letter to The Guardian resides with him. The question of copyvio does not therefore arise. All that is necessary is to rename the section in which the letter — in its entirety — appears, and to relocate it. I have done so.Phase4 21:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was misremembering and thinking Rowland produced it, not financed it. I'm fairly certain the copyright is with the Guardian (newspapers standardly claim that letters to the editor become their property), but even if it resided with Francovich it is still a copyright vio, unless you are Francovich and are freely releasing it. Even if that were the case, it still violates undue weight. Let me ask you, why do think reprinting a full letter which is not even particularly well written and which brings up points already mentioned elsewhere in the article is beneficial? I think you should step back a bit and ask yourself that question, because as you'll notice Wikipedia articles are not in the habit of quoting fairly lengthy sources in their entirety. My argument against this remains twofold--it's a copyvio and it violates undue weight. You've asserted disagreement with those arguments but have offered no evidence to refute them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, marshall the arguments (which at the moment are simply your assertions) and when you're ready we'll talk again.Phase4 22:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made the arguments, what are you talking about? You say that Francovich is the copyright holder, I'm guessing it's the paper, either way we agree there is a copyright holder. An official policy is that "Wikipedia has no tolerance for copyright violations in it, and we actively strive to find and remove any that we find." So, again, what is your argument for how this is not a copyright violation since you have already admitted there is a copyright holder? You don't seem to have one. My other argument is that it violates the undue weight clause of another official policy. That says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The single longest passage in this article (as you have it) is a lengthy (copyvio) letter written to a newspaper that repeats some information already in the article and gives far too much play to the filmmaker to essentially editorialize for his film. This is an encyclopedia article, not a John Francovich blog.

So there are my arguments, again. I'm still waiting for you to explain 1) How if there is a copyright holder we are not violating their copyright and 2) How turning over 15% of the article text to a random letter from the director to a newspaper does not violate our NPOV policies, specifically the provisions about undue weight. I'd also like you to explain why you want this pretty uninteresting and rambling letter in here in the first place--how does it help the article? You've avoided that question as well. I await your reply.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read the Francovich letter a couple of times, I've decided that it cannot be quoted verbatim but must be summarised. This has nothing to do with copyright, which I continue to dispute is applicable in this case, nor because of "undue weight" considerations. Rather, it is because the full text is potentially libellous.

So, I've topped and tailed the letter, and edited the rest of the article for consistency. Hope you approve.Phase4 15:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming it down, I don't think there's any problem with the amount of text quoted. However I did move it to an already existing section while retaining the same quote you used. We already have a section about the reaction of the US and UK governments with a reaction to that reaction from Francovich (i.e. his talk about a CIA op against him) so I think it makes the most sense to put the letter after that which is what I've done. Everything you quoted is a response to the US and UK governments--it will make much more sense to the reader if it's in that section rather than a separate stand-alone section that's just about the letter.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent: well done, BTP!Phase4 10:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ThomasThurman.jpg

The image Image:ThomasThurman.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:TinyRowland.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Image:ThomasThurman.jpg is a screen shot taken from The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie documentary film and retrieved from the Pan Am 103/Lockerbie Crash website (now defunct). There is no equivalent fair use rationale for Image:TinyRowland.jpg in The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie article.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions

I think some of the recent additions to the "Victims' families" section, added by User:WhisperToMe, need to be reworked. The added info about the Libyan funding seems a bit much in terms of detail, and it doesn't really say anything about whether the film was "Libyan financed" which would be useful. I think that should be trimmed or maybe just added to a footnote.

More importantly, the discussion of the conflict (I guess) between the Cohens and Jim Swire seems a bit odd to me. It's not exactly a reaction to the film, and it's pretty personalized. The Cohens made a serious accusation against Swire (that he made a serious accusation against other family members), but we just report that, without saying whether it is true or not. I'm not sure why it's that interesting or belongs in this article. Also it's a bit one-sided since we don't know what Swire said about the whole thing. I think it's good to talk about what these people thought about the film (the last couple of sentences added to the first paragraph are especially useful in that regard), but I don't think we need to know what they said about each other. Also because all we have here is an unsubstantiated accusation (referencing another unsubstantiated accusation), I think there are some WP:BLP issues here. I'd like to hear WhisperToMe's thoughts on this. Also kudos to that editor for bringing in an additional source. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The Cohen's book was published by New American Library, therefore it is not a "self-published" work, so that should make the material compliant with BLP.

2. I did some searching and this source http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/diary-fury-over-libyan-film-on-lockerbie-1371460.html says the film was financed by Libya - So that should make the point somewhat moot

3. The thing about the "suggesting" that the Cohens refer to in Swire's interview is that it's partly the interpretations on part of the Cohens, but it's also because in this case it is not original research that the Cohens interpreted Swire's comments in that matter. I'll see if I can find the Swire interview directly.

4. It is a reaction related to the film, since Swire referred specifically to Americans who opposed the film (attributing unsavory motives to them), and the Cohens responded to that accusation. The book didn't say that Swire was only talking about one or two people. Again, I'll see if I can find the Swire interview.

EDIT: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/film-claims-stir-lockerbie-row-1392234.html

"In December Dr Swire was quoted in the Guardian as saying that he 'had good reason to believe Coleman's drug theories' even though they provided an escape route for Pan Am's lawyers. 'We may be faced with the decision of whether we want the money or the truth,' he said. A horrified Daniel Cohen saw the article. 'I know of no one, no one, who would ignore the truth about the murder of a child or husband or wife or brother or sister just for money,' he said in a letter to Dr Swire. 'Yes, governments lie. Your government lies and my government lies. But lawyers for insurance companies also lie, so do shady low-life fugitives and weepy TV producers. If you can't see that, you can't see anything.'"

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things in reply to that. First this source about the Libyan financing is an opinion piece (a tiny one at that) and not acceptable for controversial matters of fact. It is mouthing received wisdom (actually more of a rumor) and not going into as much detail as other accounts. As such I'm going to remove the last sentence of the intro. Note that it's easy to reconstruct what seems to be going on here. The article cited in footnote 18 provides support for the article statement "The film's production company, Hemar Enterprises, was part-owned by the Lonrho affiliate Metropole Hotels which, in turn, was one third-owned by a state-run Libyan investment company." Some of your own additions tell a similar story. There is a big difference in saying that a film production company is partially owned by a hotel company, which in turn is one-third owned by a state-run investment company in Libya, and saying that "the government of Libya financed the production company." That idea was widely circulated and gained major truck among the film's detractors, but it was also contested, and after looking through basically every article on Lexis-Nexis published at the time I found no definitive answer. The editorial you cite adds nothing new, so I think we need to remain agnostic on the question of how the film was financed, and simply report the controversy as we currently do in a couple of places.

I understand the book you are citing is not self-published, but that is not why I have BLP concerns. The book only presents one side of the story, and allows the Cohens to make what could be deemed serious accusations against Swire (he is saying we only care about the money), while our article gives Swire no "voice" so to speak. It's good you found that statement Swire made, but again we are only providing the Cohen's interpretation of it, which strikes me as rather overheated (in Wikipedian terms, the Cohens clearly assumed to "assume good faith" of what Swire said and took the worst possible view of it&mdasd;though maybe they're right, I have no idea). If this were really important to the article I could see that being okay, but really all this comes down to is: 1) Guy says something in the paper; 2) Other people interpret what it means in a possibly slanted fashion and say they hate it. I'm not sure that's worth mentioning when we can only record the views of one of the disputing parties, though maybe we just need to reframe it.

I'll hold off on the second issue to see if you have any thoughts, but I'm removing the new material on the Libyan financing because that simply is not up to snuff. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the Libya financing, if it is disputed, then why not write a section about the dispute of whether Libya financed the film and state who wrote it and who didn't?

Obviously the book by the Cohens is written to represent their viewpoint, so that means is we have to present information that is their viewpoint as such.

You said: "The book only presents one side of the story, and allows the Cohens to make what could be deemed serious accusations against Swire (he is saying we only care about the money), while our article gives Swire no "voice" so to speak." - Did Swire respond directly to the comments the Cohens made? If so, we include these comments. If not, then Swire never raised his voice against these comments that the Cohens made and we do not have Swire's view/defense. The dispute that the Cohens held against Swire was also reported in a British newspaper article, so this isn't just something that appears in their book. The British newspaper article mentions Cohen's response, but it does not mention any response made by Swire to the Cohen view.

This article (same one that includes Swire's statement and Cohen's response) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/film-claims-stir-lockerbie-row-1392234.html describes Hemar as "A company owned by Lonrho and the Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company (Lafico)" and it also says "After the Libyan involvement in the firm was revealed in the press in November, Lonrho announced in January that it would withdraw support and said it would use copyright law to ensure the film was never shown."

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could have a separate section on the Libyan financing issue, but I think it makes more sense to just discuss it in the government or familial reaction sections (or both). The passage you cite from the Guardian article only further muddies the waters. It is talking about Lonrho—which was not a Libyan company—withdrawing support. Did they actually do that? And what does that even mean, i.e. had they already financed it, or had they been planning to? Does this suggest that the money came only from Lonrho (to Metropole and then the production company) and that Libya had nothing to do with it? It's quite unclear. Obviously they were not successful in using "copyright law to ensure the film was never shown," since it was shown on TV and at a film festival, among a few other places, so we can't say whether they ended up withdrawing support, or even what that support actually was, given that the article only reports on Lonrho's intentions and not what actually happened.

I'd have to look back at the non-free articles (most of which were published later than the Independent article) to get more information about the Libyan financing, but there simply was nothing conclusive there, and we're getting dangerously close to original research by trying to synthesize various snippets of news into a complete account that does not actually exist in any of the original sources that I've seen. As such I think it makes more sense to discuss this in terms of the belief of some families (and, apparently, the American and UK governments) that the film was Libyan financed. It's verifiable that they believed this, and that belief very much colored their reaction. If you find better sources about the financing I'd be much more inclined to have a standalone section on that.

I don't know if Swire "responded" or not and that's not really material to my point. I don't think we need to get into the he said/she said detail, and I think it's an actual BLP problem when we have accusations being tossed about. I'm fine with reporting the fact that there was conflict among the families, but I'd like to see less specificity (I actually would not mind citing the fact that Swire apparently went to Libya and met with Gaddafi—that can be sourced directly to a news article rather than to speculation about motivations). I'll probably have a go at revising this at some point later and see what you think. I'm also removing the current last sentence in the article as it is simply inaccurate. If you read carefully the Cohen's are still responding to the 1993 article, not "what Swire said in a February 1994 article in The Independent" (incidentally there is probably more information that could be culled from that piece, which I apparently missed when I first researched this). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Regarding Libya and Loronho, the article says " A company owned by Lonrho and the Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company (Lafico) decided to produce a documentary..." - this refers to the film production company, so the article says that the film production company is owned by both Lonhrho and Lafico (Libya).

2. You said: "Did they actually do that? And what does that even mean, i.e. had they already financed it, or had they been planning to? Does this suggest that the money came only from Lonrho (to Metropole and then the production company) and that Libya had nothing to do with it?" - It's saying that some of the money financing the production company came from Libya, with other money coming from Lonrho. Lonrho said it was promising to pull out its share, but I haven't found an article that said that it had pulled out.

3. You said: "but there simply was nothing conclusive there, and we're getting dangerously close to original research by trying to synthesize various snippets of news into a complete account that does not actually exist in any of the original sources that I've seen."

Firstly, this particular article clearly states that the production company was partly funded by Libya. If other sources differ, then it would help to state which ones say so. I think I'll be able to find them with LexisNexis or some other way via a library.

By the original source, are you referring to primary sources? If so, according to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Wikipedia's sourcing is generally supposed to be based on secondary sources (such as news articles), and so part of this is relying on the newspaper's interpretation of events. I.E., one can source a statement if the newspaper directly says that. This article I have directly says that the production company was financed partly by Lafico.

As for synthesis, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position explains inappropriate synthesis. Looking through the discussion, I don't see how synthesis like this is happening. You can combine material from multiple sources as long as one represents it properly and doesn't use it to make a new position not directly stated in either source.

For WP:BLP it says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." - The Cohens made the accusation in their book and in the article in The independent, which makes a published book and a newspaper article. I would argue that Swire is a public figure (WP:BLP states "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say") - Also I believe the accusations the Cohens made is being represented properly as it is being attributed to them. This doesn't address whether this belongs in this article or the Jim Swire article, but hopefully it will show how it passes BLP.

"If you read carefully the Cohen's are still responding to the 1993 article" - DOH! I made a mistake regarding that bit. - EDIT: It was the wording, as I was trying to say that the Cohen statements were published in the Independent, not that the Swire statements were published in the Independent.

However, I don't think this was the proper way to handle it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Maltese_Double_Cross_%E2%80%93_Lockerbie&diff=307605468&oldid=307508194 - The fact that it was from a 1993 The Guardian article was readily apparent in the source that was quoted, so removing it was not the proper course of action. Instead you should have simply corrected it, as I did in my last edit. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As for Swire's trips to Libya, this Los Angeles Times article http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/53391645.html?dids=53391645:53391645&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+02%2C+2000&author=MARJORIE+MILLER&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=On+Eve+of+Trial%2C+Lockerbie+Case+Splits+Survivors&pqatl=google said "While his own Conservative government at the time refused to meet with him for years, Swire flew to the Libyan capital, Tripoli, after the U.S. and British indictments were issued to plead with Kadafi to hand over the suspects for trial. He took gifts to the Libyan leader in the Arab tradition and commiserated with him over the loss of their daughters--a baby girl whom Kadafi said he had adopted was killed during a U.S. air attack on Libya in 1986. But Swire says he was scared at first about going to Libya." In a part displayed by Google News when I searched for "Jim Swire trips to Libya" the Los Angeles Times article also says "Swire made two more trips to see the Libyan leader, all of which have earned..."

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The death of the filmmaker

There are interesting conspiracy theories on the net regarding the sudden death of Allan Francovich, one year after the film was shown by Channel 4. He died in Houston airport and was only was 56. --Rolec Dubbing (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Rolect: Did the conspiracy theories receive coverage in sources? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that I have seen , there are references to a nerve agent on this article below, but he could have have been poisoned by polonium or any other weird substance and it would not have shown up. [ http://www.apfn.org/apfn/strange.htm]

This quote below is from the Wikipedia page on Pik Botha, does it reveal that the bomb was meant for them? Anyhow this is just one of the devastating facts in the film and is verifiable.

Namibian independence

"On December 22, 1988, Pik Botha signed the tripartite agreement involving Angola, Cuba and South Africa at United Nations headquarters in New York City which led to the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435, and to South Africa's relinquishing control of Namibia after decades of defiance. On December 21, 1988 Pik Botha, with a 22-strong South African delegation from Johannesburg, was initially booked to travel to the Namibian independence ratification ceremony in New York on Pan Am Flight 103 via London to New York. Instead, the booking was cancelled as he and six delegates took an earlier flight, thereby avoiding the fatal PA 103 crash at Lockerbie, Scotland."

--Rolec Dubbing (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Critical Reception

The article introduction is wrong about the critical reception. the film was a success when it was shown and won the best documentary award at Edinburgh Film Festival. --Wool Bridge (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Edinburgh Film Festival prize?

The article states that "The first public showing of The Maltese Double Cross in Britain took place at the Glasgow Film Theatre on 17 November 1994. Soon after, the film was screened at the Edinburgh Film Festival where it won the Best Documentary prize." This is not possible. The Edinburgh Film Festival in 1994 took place from August 13 to 28th. In addition, according to the Festival's website, the prize for Best Documentary Feature did not begin until 2006.

I have checked the backfiles of the Observer and Guardian for this period (the proquest historical newspaper database), and while the Guardian for August 29 1994 lists the Festival Awards, it does not list a documentary award. There are several articles about films shown at the festival that year that mention documentaries shown, such as "Osaka Story" by Toichi Nakata, and "Bosna!" by Alain Ferrari and Bernard-Henri Lévy, but not a word about "Double Cross." I checked the NY Times obituary of Francovich, which is the source for the claim that the film won an award, and it does indeed say this. Regrettably, NYT obituaries sometimes do have errors; this is no doubt another one.

Based on the anachronisms and total lack of confirmation in contemporary papers, I will delete. Comments here. Rgr09 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This reference appears to be a better cite for the statement regarding the first public showing, but this one indicates a private screening before that. It makes sense that committee's who hand out awards may have seen it before it was released publicly. These sources appears to be reliable and state that it received the award: [2][3].

I'm not convinced the list on the official website is complete. The Edinburgh Film Festival has gone through a number of name changes and was founded as the Edinburgh International Festival of Documentary Films in 1947. Someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film might have a way to find out. - Location (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I had seen the story in the Telegraph, but not the AP story. Let's take this piece by piece: First, it is not possible that "Double Cross" won best documentary award at the EIFF because the documentary award did not begin until 2006, as noted here: "...this year sees the addition of a prestigious award to match this commitment. The Feature Documentary Award has been established to recognise compelling non-fiction filmmaking of style and integrity." That is why the list of past winners begins in 2006. This is confirmed, as far as a negative can confirm, by a story in the Guardian (August 29, 1994) listing films that won awards at the Festival in 1994. It did not mention any documentary award.

Second, you have found two stories about the screening of the film at parliament: one is from the AP, which you got in the Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA) from Nov. 16, 1994; the second is by Alan George, writing for the Observer, which you found in the Telegraph from Nov. 24. The AP story is about the screening of the film at Parliament, and the angry reaction of some family members of American victims of the bombing. The Observer story is about the State Department reaction to the screening. Both stories refer to the same screening at Parliament, which took place on Wednesday, Nov. 16. The film was originally scheduled to be shown at the London Film Festival on Nov. 20th, but the Festival cancelled the screening, according to the AP story; the Telegraph story does not mention the planned date for the LFF.

The screening at Parliament was arranged by Labour MP Tam Dalyell, as the Telegraph story notes. This was a private screening, meaning, I assume, that only those Dalyell invited could attend. The second showing, on the 17th in Glasgow, is naturally not mentioned in the AP story, which is datelined the 16th. It was "public" in the sense that it was not by invitation, and took place in Glasgow by arrangement with The Scotsman, a daily newspaper in Edinburgh.

The article gives a link to a blog by a lawyer, Lesley Riddoch, who claims to have been involved in a review that lawyers did of the film before it was shown in Glasgow. The blog explains that the reason for the private screening in Parliament was that as an MP, Dalyell had immunity from libel claims. From Riddoch's blog, it seems that the film was edited before the Glasgow showing to remove material that might have exposed the paper to libel claims. Riddoch is very vague about this, mentioning "an American drug enforcement official" sending lawyers to the Glasgow screening. If true, I would suggest that this was Michael Hurley (I will check on this in the stories I read earlier). The claim that this was "the first public showing" of the film comes from Riddoch, but that it took place is confirmed by the Telegraph story.

Here is where the second anachronism comes in. Both the "private" showing, and the "public" showing, took place in November 1994. How then can the film receive an award from the 1994 Edinburgh Film Festival, which ended on August 28th? Nonsense, yet even Riddoch, who was involved in the matter, repeats this absurdity.

The books you cite were probably the source for the NYT obituary, but based on double anachronism, I don't see why this claim should remain. Rgr09 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The links were only to show that it is possible that the film was screened elsewhere prior to the first public showing. The EFF certainly had a history of giving awards prior to what is currently shown on the official website. One of these appears to have been called the "Golden Laurel" given to "best" in various categories. I'll have to look into that one a bit more. -Location (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)