Talk:Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Splitting out

Am I missing something? This looks like a dumping ground for images from the main Pan Am Flight 103 page - can we delete this now? Keithlard 17:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please see my message on your talk page: you are missing something - it's not a dumping ground!Phase1 23:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, I didn't realise you're in the process of splitting this article out. If you're doing that, it would be better to do it all in one go rather than leave the article in a broken state for several days where casual browsers (like me) can come across it. Alternatively, if it's under heavy construction, I'd suggest taking it out of the category and making sure it's not linked from anywhere until it's 'ready for press'. Keithlard 10:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that sounded a bit short-tempered - it wasn't meant to be. To prove this isn't just hand-waving and show a bit of good faith, I've made a start on moving the text in from the main article. Keithlard 14:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Mais oui!

• The flight – not the aircraft – was Pan Am 103.
• The information about Lord Fraser of Carmyllie is already on his page but in greater detail.
• It is a fact that the local police resources were insufficient for such a large investigation. There is no question of POV here.

For the future, please discuss such issues on the relevant talk page before rushing to edit.Phase4 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not blanket revert: you managed to mass-delete a huge amount of links for example that have absolutely nothing to do with your three objections above.

On your objections:

• • Point 1: a bit pedantic, but feel free to find a better wording. The key thing is that the article must link to the Pan Am Flight 103 article in the opening paragraph. The version you so casually reverted to does not even link to that article in the entire introduction, and I scanned down a fair bit and still couldn't see it: kind of an elementary flaw.
  • Point2: Good, in that case it need not be duplicated here, and especially not in the introduction: it is just totally out of place.
  • Point 2:If it is a fact then you will have a source, re WP:CITE. If you do not have a source, it will go.

If you disagree with some of my edits then please discuss, but to blanket revert a large number of non-contentious links like that may be interpreted as vandalism. --Mais oui! 08:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. Perhaps, I should start by saying this article Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 was created (largely by me) as a "sub-article" of the main Pan Am Flight 103 article. Although the sub-article concept tends not to be recognised on Wikipedia, most readers will arrive there having navigated through the main article. So while I see the point you are making about the link to the main article appearing in the opening paragraph I don't agree with your use of the word must. If you go to the "See also" section you can see the links to the main article and the other sub-articles.

Taking your other comments/other issues in sequence:

Lord Fraser: I agree it's unusual to have "current" information like this in the intro. But Fraser's recent outburst was unusual, to say the least. I think it should be as close as possible to the first mention of Fraser in the article, but should remain, as it was, in parentheses.

POV: I'm afraid you are wrong about this. The piece on police resources was quoted verbatim from a paper presented by the present Lord Advocate Colin Boyd to a conference of law officers in 2001. See "External links"Police investigations of politically sensitive or high profile crimes

Spelling: You have changed some NAm spellings to British English eg fiber to fibre and aluminum to aluminium, but not pajamas to pyjamas or woolen to woollen. Nor have all your changes been consistently applied. An activity like this cannot be undertaken lightly or done piecemeal.

Wikifying: Customarily in an article a word or subject is wikified once, and not each time the word or subject is subsequently mentioned. You seem to like multiple wikifications eg DERA, Toshiba and Pan Am Flight 103.

Large number of links: For me, the best thing about Wikipedia is the wikilinks to other articles: a wealth of information and related info is just a click away. What I don't like to see is an article with a barrage of blue links to self-explanatory subjects. What is even worse is a mass of red links (which aren't links at all because there isn't a wiki article for them, and which could be defined as a form of vandalism). I think it is incumbent upon those who make these distracting red links in an article to go and create the new article, thus converting red to blue.

From the above, you might have gleaned that I don't think the majority of your edits have improved this sub-article. Since an edit war is mostly unproductive and always unseemly, I'll leave it to you to do the right thing.Phase4 16:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have dealt with your points.

It is counter-productive when people who work a lot in one particular area become (slightly) proprietorial, although I can perfectly understand the raw human reaction to "your" work being edited. (I'm afraid that once you click that Save page button the work ceases to be your own.)

One point of information: I actually removed 4 of (presumably) your duplicate DERA links, so you got that story topsy-turvy.--Mais oui! 14:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have finished the work you started on converting the NAm spellings, removed excessive links but added others, and sorted out your alleged POVs. Grudgingly have to admit a slight improvement to the article overall!Phase4 19:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

I have listed this as a good article... cos it is. Not quite ready for Featured article status, but not a million miles away. Next stage should be Peer review.--Mais oui! 14:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Flatterer!Phase4 19:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)