Talk:Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

logic??

isn't it more logical to assume that the enemies of the SA gov't wanted to bomb the plane carrying the diplomats? Why would the SA gov't want to blow up their own guys? This doesn't make sense, the fact that the diplomats cancelled would indicate that the SA intelligence forces had creible information about their enemies plans to do something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noserider (talk • contribs) 13:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there still a case against Libya?

Now that Ulrich Lumpert has admitted lying about the Mebo timer fragment (the only piece of hard evidence linking Libya to the Lockerbie bombing), where does that leave the prosecution's case against the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi (who is still in Greenock prison) and the compensation paid by Libya ($2.16 billion) to the relatives of the 270 victims of Pan Am Flight 103?Phase4 21:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You are kidding right? This one "lie" was a technicality concerning ONE piece of evidence (no one ever disputed the fact that MEBO did supply Libya with 20 MST-13 timers). There is a mountain of evidence linking the convicted person to the crime, not to even mention the mountains of circumstantial evidence, including:

• 1988 Bombing of UTA Flight 772 (3 months prior to Pan Am 103)
  • Libyans convicted in French court!!!
  • Also present was traces of pentrite (Semtex) and samsonite suitcase
  • Libya "accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials" in 2003, [1]
• 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing
  • 2 Weeks after class between American and Libyan vessels in Gulf of Sidra
  • Libyans convicted in German court
• Libya imported 700 tonnes of Semtex (use in UTA 772 and Pan Am 103) from 1975 to 1981

Oh no, let us all ignore facts, pattern of behavior (Libyan retaliation, blowing up of passenger jets, discotheques) and convictions in French, German and Scottish courts respectively and rather dream up fanciful alternative such as some bizarre conspiracy, which — as all conspiracy theories — never accounts for the evidence, patterns, previous convictions or even admissions of guilt only one or two perceived anomalies).

If this is not enough, let us at least stick to the Wikipedia rules regarding attribution and original research. --Deon Steyn 11:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Erwin Meister and Edwin Bollier admitted to the Scottish Court in the Netherlands that Mebo had supplied 20 MST-13 timers to Libya in 1985. But, I'm not sure where the "mountain of evidence" or those "mountains of circumstantial evidence" are located. And, to correct you, UTA Flight 772 came nine months after Pan Am Flight 103.

It is now for the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal to decide whether Megrahi's conviction is to be overturned. If it decides there has been a miscarriage of justice and Megrahi is freed from jail, the question posed above (is there still a case against Libya?) will need to be answered by Britain and the United States.Phase4 13:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the original argument, the entire case doesn't rest on one piece of evidence. There is still the presence of a Libyan intelligence agent at an airport en route, his clothes and suitcase etc. etc. etc. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming: Libyans having been convicted in two other countries of two separate bombings (one almost identical to the Pan Am bombing), Libya having bought timers and tonnes of Semtex and Libya having accepted responsibility for this and the other bombings. Please explain to me which other party also bought timers and semtex and bombed two airlines and a discotheque over this 3 year period AND were convicted of (in three separate countries) and admitted to these incidents??? --Deon Steyn 07:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I merely posed the question (is there still a case against Libya?). You clearly think there is still a very strong case.

Because of the doubts raised in the SCCRC's 800-page report about Tony Gauci's identification evidence in respect of Megrahi, and now the admission of lying by Ulrich Lumpert about the timer fragment and the MST-13 timer, I think the case against Megrahi is seriously flawed – a view with which the Glasgow Herald and the Observer appear to agree.

As we know, the other accused Libyan, Fhimah, was acquitted of the Lockerbie bombing. If, as seems likely, Megrahi's conviction is about to be overturned, then Libya's 2002 letter to the UN accepting responsibility "for the actions of its officials" for Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772 looks to have been a shrewd diplomatic move. To maintain the case against Libya, it seems to me that another prosecution will have to be mounted.Phase4 10:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Being responsible for something and being found guilty in a court of law are two different things, ask O.J. Simpson ;-) And I suspect all reasonably minded people or objective observers will — regardless of legal manoeuvring or technicalities — believe Libya to be behind this incident(s). The only other vaguely plausible alternative is Libyan agents acting independently of the state as part of some terrorist organization, but even this alternative is contradicted by the targets and timing of these incidents (after confrontation with US or France respectively), the tech involved (MEBO timers, Semtex) and the fact that the Libyan government refused to (in all three cases) hand over suspects. This leaves only one conclusion; that of well planned government supplied, staffed and sanctioned acts. I reiterate: various independent authorities (France, Germany, Scotland) investigated alternatives in the various cases and all came to the same investigative and legal conclusions. --Deon Steyn 11:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

>all reasonably minded people believe Libya to be behind this incident(s). <

You are wrong. EU just came into posession of a copy of the "letter of marque and reprise" which Iran gave to the palestinian fedajeen to avenge the Vincennes Airbus with a PanAm. Sorrowfully the ayatollah was legal to do that tit-for-tat because of president Reagen's boneheadedness of not apologizing or compensating. Allah willing, the innocent libyan prisoners will be freed before 2008 and the extorted huge money has already been returned to Libya via the bulgarian AIDS nurses deal. 81.0.68.145 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing newspaper scans

I see Deon Steyn that you have today removed the iDAG newspaper scans from the alternative theories article. This cannot be for copyright reasons because the Swedish journalist, Jan-Olof Bengtsson, gave permission for these iDAG articles to be used. Please explain why you removed them.Phase4 13:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the images, because they aren't in English and as I understand Wikipedia's guidelines, it is an ENGLISH language resource. I have no idea what those articles mean or say. If you can find some guidelines that states it is okay to include scans of unreadable foreign language newspapers you can restore them (only much smaller thumbnail size).--Deon Steyn 07:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I can't see anything wrong with foreign newspaper articles in Wikipedia English language articles, but I take your point about the issue of size. As a compromise solution, I've linked the iDAG newspaper scans from the alternative theories article to the journalist Jan-Olof Bengtsson's biography where, I guess, they rightfully belong.Phase4 22:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Good. You might want to resize them in the Jan-Olof Bengtsson, the page payout looks a little messy... or perhaps use a gallery template (Help:Image#Gallery tag, category, table of images)? --Deon Steyn 07:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these interesting suggestions. I've resized the images.Phase4 14:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Very biased

> Muammar al-Gaddafi's Libya has a long and well-documented history of support for international terrorism. An indisputable fact is that, during the 1970s and 1980s, Gaddafi supplied large quantities of Libyan weapons and explosives to the Provisional Irish Republican Army. <

These two sentences of the article are NOT logically connected! Supporting military means of gaining independence and unity to the entire Irish Islands is NOT terrorism if you refuse to recognise the UK. Many countries of the world recognize only Great Britain per se and legally consider the north-irish irish people exactly like the palestinians, that is a nation under continued foreign military occupation. These countries are fully within their rights to supply military means to the irish independence fighters. 81.0.68.145 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The following extract from Freedom fighter highlights the difference in perspective between one man's terrorist and another man's freedom fighter:

"Certain media agencies, notably the BBC and Reuters, except in attributed quotes, avoid the phrase "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", in favour of neutral terms such as "militant", "guerrilla", "assassin", paramilitary or militia to avoid the editorialising implicit in the use of such words.

An exception to the rule can be found in the actions of BBC in the 1970s and 1980s. When BBC was reporting on the Troubles in Northern Ireland, it referred to the Provisional Irish Republican Army as "terrorists", while referred to members of loyalist armed groups such as the Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Volunteer Force, as "paramilitaries." They continued to use neutral terminology of other "insurgent" conflicts around the world."

So, those two sentences of the article CAN BE logically connected but the connection is likely to depend upon the individual's perspective!Phase4 12:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious Article

This article contains citations that do not support the statements, lacks citations for (disputed) facts, cites unreliable sources, presents conjecture as fact, has logic errors, contains weasel words, and does not present a balanced view of the subject matter. In short, a very dubious article for an encyclopedia. Socrates2008 (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A pretty damning critique, Socrates2008! I agree with some of what you say but do not accept much of it, including the dubiety point. Here's a little bit of the history:

• two years ago, Pan Am Flight 103 had become an article of unwieldy length;
• three sections were split from the main article: Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial and Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103;
• the "alternative theories" section was moved verbatim to this new article along with the very few inline supporting references at the time. Although most statements in this section had originally been sourced (to a book, newspaper article) in the parent article, it was not obvious (to me who did most of the transfer) which statement related to which source; and,
• as the new article was expanded, inline references were of course added.

From a brief look at your tags, it seems that the following The Scotsman article provides many of the required citations: http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=184&id=1014782007 But if he didn't do it, who did? The other theories. (Incidentally, this Scotsman piece is quoted above as an example of media citing this Wikipedia article as a source!).Phase4 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

One news article is not going to satisfy the WP:V criteria. Also, if the media are citing this article, then all the more reason to get it right with good primary sources, so that the media and Wiki don't end up supporting each other's unverifiable facts. I've already removed a bunch of self-referencing citations pointing to Wiki discussions, and highlighted some places where citations are required. There are also gaping issues with the omissions, as no information is offered to balance why these theories may not be credible - only one-sided views supporting them. There's also a general lack of continuity and some irrelevant information/citations, resulting in gaps in the logical arguments. Socrates2008 (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've now completed the job started 2 years ago. The article is fully referenced (62 inline references) to primary sources and all tags have been removed. Hope it meets with your and other editors' approval.Phase4 (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging by Socrates2008

Without any prior discussion here, Socrates2008 has again tagged the article. The tag used this time is "unbalanced", yet Socrates2008 does not explain what is "unbalanced" about which section, and in what way it is "unbalanced". The only explanation provided is in the edit summary — WP:V.

Until the matter is properly discussed and agreed on this talk page, I am reverting Socrates2008's latest edit.Phase4 (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The "unbalanced" tag is there because the article does not present a balanced view of the subject matter. i.e. It does not present any information to refute any of the theories. The other edits are for missing citations (including quotations) and weasel words. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Reverting my edit for the above reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

American RadioWorks gives the required balance (see "Conclusion"): other citations either provided or disputed text removed.Phase4 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Radio detonation

"According to the the theory of radio detonation, the bomb would have been set to detonate when PA 103 was prompted by the Dean Cross radio navigational beacon to re-tune to 123.95 MHz, Shanwick Oceanic Control's unique radio frequency." Can someone please clarify how a bomb can be triggered by the crew tuning into a different radio navigation beacon? i.e. How would the bomb trigger "know" what frequency the crew had tuned into, as the onboard navigational equipment is passive (the transmitters are outside the plane on the ground)? Socrates2008 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was PA 103's transmitting to Shanwick (and/or receiving) at 123.95 MHz that triggered the IED. The Dean Cross beacon merely prompted the crew to re-tune to that frequency. This is an extract from the main Pan Am Flight 103 article:

At 19:00, PA103 was picked up by the Scottish Area Control Centre at Prestwick [Shannon + Prestwick = Shanwick], Scotland, where it needed clearance to begin its flight across the Atlantic Ocean. Alan Topp, an air traffic controller, made contact with the Clipper as it entered Scottish airspace.

Captain MacQuarrie replied: "Good evening Scottish, Clipper one zero three. We are at level three one zero." Then First Officer Wagner spoke: "Clipper 103 requesting oceanic clearance." Those were the last words heard from the aircraft.Phase4 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality of sources

Anon IP 58.107.12.118 has today tagged the article saying the quality of sources needs improving.

I have looked at the 64 references cited in the article. They break down as follows:

• 7 x BBC;
• 13 x The Scotsman;
• 3 x Glasgow Herald;
• 2 x The Times;
• 1 x The New York Times;
• 9 x Guardian/Observer;
• 1 x SCCRC;
• 2 x United Nations;
• 1 x "International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law";
• 6 x Books;
• 2 x Book reviews;
• 1 x TIME;
• 1 x ABC News;
• 1 x Pan Am;
• 1 x "CarpeNoctem.tv";
• 2 x UK Government;
• 2 x Joe Vialls;
• 1 x The Namibian;
• 1 x Namibian historian;
• 2 x South African Government;
• 1 x American RadioWorks;
• 1 x "US Institute of Peace";
• 1 x iDAG (Swedish newspaper); and,
• 2 x Maltese Double Cross (documentary film).

63 of these references appear to be well-sourced. Reference №36 — http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/pan.html Support for the Juval Aviv/Interfor theory — is, however, of doubtful quality and seems superfluous. Subject to the views of other editors, I would support its deletion. I am removing the "quality of sources" tag.Phase4 (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Alleged breach of copyright

As is perfectly clear from the source citation tag above, it is The Scotsman that copied pre-existing text verbatim from this article. There is therefore no breach of copyright and I have removed the tag that Socrates2008 has applied in error.Phase4 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to remove the 13 citations to the Scotsman article, as these are effectively self-referencing and unreliable in that case? (See WP:V) Socrates2008 (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please consult the 64 references cited above, thirteen of which refer to The Scotsman newspaper. These 13 citations refer to different "Scotsman" articles.Phase4 (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, quote #54 cites the Scotsman article in question and is therefore clearly self-referencing. In any event, how can a newspaper that has demonstrated a tendency to cut/paste verbatim from this very article be used as a reliable source here, especially considering the contraversial nature of the conspiracy material you're trying to present? Exceptional claims need exceptional sources, not suspect ones. Socrates2008 (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Source removed. If someone believes this is a reliable source, they need to contact the author of the Scotsman article and ask them to give their own sources. --- RockMFR 05:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. As per above, I have serious doubts about the reliability of any quotes from the Scotsman in this context, given that publication's tendency to cut/paste from this article. Indeed, the very fact that this source has been cited more than any other only reinforces my concerns about original research in this Wiki article.Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Salami tactics by Socrates2008

I continue to try to WP:Assume good faith in respect of edits by Socrates2008. Some of the latter's recent idiosyncratic edits are on display at Yvonne Fletcher, Patrick Haseldine and Samora Machel. Taken in conjunction with the above tagging of this article at "Dubious article", "Tagging by Socrates2008", "Radio detonation" and "Alleged breach of copyright", it is difficult to dispute that these edits are fast becoming a form of WP:vandalism. For instance, "Socrates2008" says above that #54 refers to a "Scotsman" article whereas it actually relates to The Guardian, October 31, 1990 "Rules broken on Lockerbie flight". Socrates2008 alleges that one "Scotsman" article referring to a number of alternative theories is "clearly self-referencing" in relation to just one theory: the South Africa Luggage Swap Theory. Why then isn't that particular "Scotsman" article self-referencing in relation to all the other theories?

Come off it, Socrates2008, remove your self-serving tags, and refrain from adding them unnecessarily in future! This will allow the overwhelming majority of constructive Wikipedia editors to get on with doing the best job we can.Phase4 (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation #54 now refers to a Guardian article because the two self-references were removed at 07:17 on 17 December 2007. I'm glad you've pointed out those other articles, which to some extent, suffer from many of the same issues as here, i.e. lack of verifiability and attempts to present or defend suspect material or original research at any cost. The Scotsman article is a case in point here - how can you defend the use of a source that has cut/pasted from this very Wiki article? I can only assume from this behaviour and the personal attack that you're starting to find the burden of verifiability somewhat onerous - perhaps in that case you should consider contributing to a blog instead, since these do not have the same requirements as an encyclopedia?

PS: Glad to see that you've managed to slip a good weasel phrase in there ("overwhelming majority of constructive Wikipedia editors")  :-) Socrates2008 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Flaws in SA theory

Hi Deon, the following edit you made to the article seems to be your own personal point of view rather than a sourced critique:

"The most glaringly obvious deficiencies in the theory —that clearly rules it out even as a remote possibility— are the following:

1. There are much simpler and more specific ways of assassinating a single person.
2. Blowing up a civilian airliner of a foreign super power would draw an unnecessary scrutiny.
3. Booking cancelling and cancelling tickets for the same flight would obviously arouse suspicion?
4. The theoretical assassination plan would have an impossibly low chance of success:
   • A bomb had to be smuggle onto a commercial flight in a foreign country at short notice
   • The target person had to be convinced to change to that specific flight
5. None of the official investigations ever pursued this theory seriously.
6. The supposed advantage gained by Carlsson's death seems negligible:
   • Namibia independence agreement was still signed the following day.
   • Namibian elections and independence followed as and when agreed upon.
   • The UN could have simply replaced Carlsson with another commissioner."

If this is the case, I suggest you move the text onto the article's discussion page so that we can talk it through.Phase4 (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

None of my statements are opinion it is clear fact. If you want to remove conjecture, speculation, original research, then almost the entire section should be moved. Remember that original research includes connection two unrelated facts (even verifiable and cited) in a speculative manner. Someone has to bring balance and neutrality, because the article surely can not only include ridiculous speculation. You must remember that most newspaper articles seek to push a certain point to sensationalize. --Deon Steyn (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, which of the points in question are not facts? --Deon Steyn (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice one, Deon! As we all know, there are lots of facts out there. Unfortunately, the only facts that can be included on Wikipedia are those that can be verified. So, I'm afraid, all your facts (and/or opinions) have to go to the relevant talk page until such time as you can provide the required citations.Phase4 (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with these unusual tactics. Where citations are required, tags can be inserted. I have restored this section to the article and already cited several sources. In broad terms this new section address the two fatal flaws with this theory:

1. It is an unlikely form of assassination for the South African government.
2. There was absolutely no gain by removing Carlsson.
   • UNSCR 435 had always stipulated a South African "Administrator-General" and a "Special Representative of the Secretary-General". It's not even clear what the role, if any, of the UN Commissioner would have been after the implementation of 435.
   • 435's exact timetable (already set in 1978) was implemented starting in April a date chosen by the UN in January only weeks after Carlsson's death. 435 (and 629) were implemented in time and on schedule as required by the United Nations.

The theory is completely without sources regarding the motive for South Africa. --Deon Steyn (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the work that you have done to improve the new section, which Socrates2008 has correctly placed at the end (rather than in the middle) of the South Africa theory. I've made a few self-explanatory amendments but perhaps I should explain why the piece about Carlsson's suitcase was taken out. The luggage swap theory implies that the bomb suitcase was swapped for Carlsson's case, so by definition the bomb would not have been in his suitcase which, so far as I'm aware, has never been identified in the debris of the PA 103 wreckage.

You raise the question of Commissioner Carlsson's status: it's very well explained in the UN Commissioner for Namibia article. Because the South African government refused to recognise him as the legitimate authority in Namibia, I guess they would have been seriously embarrassed if he had turned up at the signing of the New York Accords. But I recall having previously had this conversation (or a very similar one) over a year ago at Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 1. Maybe I'll take another look at the archive.Phase4 (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The suitcase has been identified as belong to someone else, NOT to Carlsson. Furthermore, the persons were attempting to blow up the plane, the bomb could have been anywhere. Why would they need to swap it with his suitcase specifically?

Furthermore, suggesting as a motive that the South African government would be embarrassment at Carlsson's presence at the NY Accords is completely unacceptable and not based in any fact. Who would blow up 280 people just to kill one person that might cause them some embarrassment and why would his presence embarrass them?

It sounds to me as if you actually believe this theory when it is patently ridiculous. Please refrain from Original Research in Wikipedia articles or talk pages. --Deon Steyn (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Swapping suitcases at Heathrow is no more implausible than the account given at the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial of how the bomb suitcase arrived unaccompanied from Malta via Frankfurt:

"Court proceedings started on May 3, 2000 with the Prosecution outlining the case against the accused and previewing the evidence which they expected would satisfy the Judges beyond reasonable doubt that the sabotage of PA 103 was caused by:

1. the explosion of an improvised explosive device (IED);
2. an IED that was contained within a Toshiba radio cassette player in a hard-shell Samsonite suitcase along with various items of clothing which had been bought in Mary's House, Sliema, Malta;
3. an IED triggered by the use of an MST-13 timer, manufactured by Mebo Ag in Switzerland; and,
4. the so-called primary suitcase being introduced as unaccompanied baggage at Luqa Airport in Malta, conveyed by Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt International Airport, transferred there onto feeder flight PA 103A to Heathrow Airport, loaded into the interline baggage container AVE 4041PA at Heathrow, and put on board PA 103 in the forward cargo hold."

Megrahi's 2008 appeal against conviction will focus on items 2, 3 and 4 which the SCCRC has serious doubts about. If his conviction is overturned, each of the seven alternative theories in this article are available for examination by the prosecuting authorities.

Deon, I know that with your South African background you and Socrates2008 don't want to face the possibility of apartheid South Africa's involvement. The truth should however come out as a result of a United Nations Inquiry into the death of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing (see [2]). Justice will doubtless follow the UN Inquiry.Phase4 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, but I couldn't case either way if Apartheid SA was involved or not. What does upset me no end is that someone is trying to deflect attention from the convicted person and implicated country and creating and using Wikipedia as a soapbox for views not shared by anyone. Sure, some support a new investigation, but that does not imply that they support this specific absurd theory. --Deon Steyn (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As the main proponent of the apartheid South Africa did it theory, I believe I have the right to highlight the fact that just two Wikipedia editors (both South African) have contributed what appear to be opinionated edits to the flaws in the SA theory section: Deon Steyn (talk) and Socrates2008 (Talk).

I am editing the article to that effect.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Phase1 = Phase 2= Phase4 = PHaseldine = Patrick Haseldine

• The article has largely been edited by user:Phase4, and was started by related alias user:Phase1.
• user:Phase4 signed and acknowledged of a warning messages on the talk page of user user:PJHaseldine at 15:38 on 10 January 2007. This little mistake was corrected 5mins later under the correct alias, PJHaseldine, however it shows that they are one and the same person. PJHaseldene is Patrick Haseldene, the proponent of one of the unproven theories here.

The OR tag is therefore completely appropriate - kindly do not remove without discussing here first. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And the diffs. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff Socrates2008 referred to that proves Phase4 = Patrick Haseldine.

Finally we have an explanation for the POV/Soapbox edits by this editor. I will try and find the Wikipedia guidelines regarding this and start the correct procedures against this editor. --Deon Steyn (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

All I will say in response to this attack is that the Haseldine family is more extensive than Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn are allowing for.Phase4 (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So why did you use your Phase4 alias to acknowledge a warning to the user PJHaseldine, then change the signature to the correct account 5mins later then'? Let me guess, those nasty South Africans agents are conspiring against you, and intercepted your logon to frame you because they don't want your theory to see the light of day...? Or maybe you just forgot which alias you were logged in under, and tried to cover it up. Socrates2008 (Talk) 01:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have opened up a case for adminstrator's to investigate the possible sock puppet accounts and tagged the accounts accordingly. --Deon Steyn (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The administrator will confirm that these are not sock puppet accounts. You and Socrates2008 are barking up the wrong tree.Phase4 (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Phase4 blocked indefinitely as sock puppet of User:PJHaseldine (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PJHaseldine) whom in turn was blocked for one week for conflict of interest (case: Wikipedia:RFCU#PJHaseldine). I hope this lays the matter to rest. --Deon Steyn (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparent attempt to censor Wikipedia

This is an extract from The Wikipedia Review (http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14896):

"QUOTE(jorge @ Sun 23rd December 2007, 1:03am)

Phase4 has now been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of PJHaseldine i.e. Patrick Haseldine. I wonder what all the Phase1, Phase 2, Phase4 stuff was about...?

It was pretty clear that those users were the same person, or at least related. They made little attempt to obfuscate the fact, and I haven't seen anything particularly disruptive or misleading in their edits.

I also think the theory of South Africa's involvement in the bombing is more compelling than that of Libya's.

I'm now very curious about the motivations and identity of Socrates2008 and his tag team partner Deon Steyn. Their edits show an interest in South Africa military history and weapons."

The following section highlights the recent activities of Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn, which appear to be a thinly disguised attempt by these South African editors to censor Wikipedia articles to reflect their own pro-Apartheid views.PJHaseldine (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

PJHaseldine, this seems to be to show bad faith. If you are going to make such claims, back them up. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would value your views, Rlevse, on whether the concerted attack on this article (and others linked to it) by South African editors Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn is in keeping with Wikipedia policy, and whether that sort of action can be tolerated.PJHaseldine (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of following Rlevse's advice, PJHaseldine has now pasted this same passage and external link on the talk pages of his three banned sock puppet accounts. [3], [4], [5]. — Deon Steyn (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

PJHaseldine, you have failed to show any evidence for your claims of an attack on this article or how Apratheid is related to this article. Do so or cease this disruption of personal attacks, bad faith, and disruption. Otherwise I will block you one month. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated below, I'm happy to cooperate in whatever way is best. So far as I am aware, the only administrator that I have upset recently appears to be Arthur Rubin who has bafflingly just decided to revert my well-researched and referenced edit to State sponsored terrorism#South Africa on "POV" grounds. I now intend to observe a period of silence (of one month's duration) in the hope that the dust will eventually settle.PJHaseldine (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerted attack on this article (and others linked to it)

For the past week, two South African editors have mounted a concerted attack on this article — mainly the South Africa luggage swap theory — and other articles linked to it such as State sponsored terrorism#South Africa. The campaign is evidenced by the edit histories of Deon Steyn and Socrates2008 and by this extract from User talk:Deon Steyn#Conspiracy Theories:

"Thanks for your help with Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Any chance you can lend a hand with some of the articles that have been linked to it? Also see State-sponsored terrorism. Cheers Socrates2008 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)"

I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy applies to this sort of concerted editing, and should be grateful for other editors' views on whether it should be tolerated.Phase4 (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Patrick, if you expect some of us to help out with the new material you asked for review at Talk:Patrick Haseldine a bit of cooperative spirit would be appreciated. If you just want to keep on having more adventures with the administrators, that's a whole different direction, and I believe not so productive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to cooperate in whatever way is best. So far as I am aware, the only administrator that I have upset recently appears to be Arthur Rubin who has bafflingly just decided to revert my well-researched and referenced edit to State sponsored terrorism#South Africa on "POV" grounds. I now intend to observe a period of silence in the hope that the dust will eventually settle.PJHaseldine (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Theory or random innuendo

CIA_in_Lockerbie is not a theory of the incident, because it does nothing to explain how a 747 fell from the sky. It merely recites random allegations. Superm401 - Talk 12:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. I second the removal. Tempshill (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

New title

I have moved this article because the new title is shorter and more accurate. The article as it stands now appears to only include theories that are described by reliable sources as conspiracy theories. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to main article

Following discussion and agreement here, I have inserted into the text of this sub-article a link to the main Pan Am Flight 103 article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed, see Template:Main for proper use which specifically excludes use at top of article.— Deon Steyn (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

COI - February 2009

Patrick, as agreed with admins previously, I encourage you to stay away from the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article with which you have a conflict of interest. The storm has not blown over - the same restrictions apply as before. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. My latest edit to the article is here. I should be grateful for your advice as to why you consider I might have a conflict of interest with this article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are one of the primary proponents] (both externally and here at Wikipedia) of one or more theories in this article. That means you have a close association with this article, or as WP puts it, a conflict of interest. Happy to go a few more rounds with the Administrators if necessary, but I'd much prefer to see you comply willingly with the agreement reached in 2008 regarding your COI here at WP. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Although the agreement reached in 2008 did not cover this article, I take your point about my close association with it leading to a potential conflict of interest. To avoid this possibility, I propose making an explanation of each future edit of the article that might be controversial, and to declare my interest.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what any agreement says, [putting talk discussion into the article is drama mongering and very inappropriate — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In which case, I am tagging the "Flaws in theory" section as WP:OR which, as is clear from the above discussion, has been conducted by both Deon Steyn and Socrates2008.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is already tagged OR, primarily due to the unreferenced content you added under several aliases, so re-tagging sub-sections is redundant. I've taken this incident as an opportunity to start cleaning the article up, and will be addressing all the unreferenced/OR material currently contained in it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

A good start has been made — not before time — by Socrates2008 in cleaning up the article. Much of the currently unreferenced content can be traced back to the removal by several editors of correctly referenced text over the past 14 months. I shall systematically begin to reintroduce appropriate references.

As regards Socrates' adding to the South African delegation section an "importance-sect" tag, I aim to show by reference to evidence given in relation to the crash of South African Airways Flight 295 in the Indian Ocean in 1987 that, although SAA was banned under the 1986 Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act from flying to any airport in the United States, it was SAA's practice routinely to carry weapons and munitions on board its civilian flights to destinations including London's Heathrow International Airport. The South African delegation's SAA flight from Johannesburg could therefore have arrived at Heathrow on 21 December 1988 carrying the bomb which eventually destroyed Pan Am Flight 103.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Socrates for carrying out a much-delayed clean up of the article. Truly, a job well done!---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

COI

Patrick, may I remind you of your COI over this article, and your agreement to follow guidlines for avoiding COI edits. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Socrates, the answer to the question you have posed (without a question mark!) is NO. However, I do congratulate you for all the hard work you've done over the past two days to improve this article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no COI over this article. However, Socrates2008 appears to have one - see this COI discussion.---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

According to both the edit history of the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article and the conflict of interest noticeboard, two major contributors are identified as having a conflict of interest issue over this article: they are Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I cannot confirm or deny that Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn have a conflict of interest. You clearly have one. You are named in the article.

WP:COIN is also clear that you have a conflict of interest, and no one other than you has claimed that anyone other than you has a conflict of interest. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that SamJohnston does not agree with you, Arthur. This is what he said on 3 March 2009 on theconflict of interest noticeboard: "An interest is not a conflict of interest. Citing oneself is more relevant to academic papers and the like - citing letters to the editor is an obvious violation of WP:V (specifically WP:SPS), much the same for circular references (which you can discuss specifically at WP:RSN). As for campaigning, I don't see an off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest here." Sam Johnston also said that this is an WP:NPOV issue rather than a WP:COI one.---PJHaseldine (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making false statements, Mr. Haseldine. Nowhere has anyone, except yourself accused myself or Socrates2008 of having a conflict of interest related to this article. — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this COI discussion where voting is currently taking place to decide what action is appropriate to address the ongoing policy violations in respect of this article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)