Talk:Pan Am Flight 103

Not so

Two Libyans, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, were the only people accused of the crime. Lamin Khalifah Fhimah was tried by an International Court and found innocent. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was also to be retried in view of new evidence and, based on the new evidence, would have been acquitted of all charges. To avoid the retrial, al-Magrahi was released supposedly on humanitarian grounds. Abu Agila Mohammad Mas'ud Kheir Al-Marimi was accused of participation only around 2022, why so late? What new facts came to light? Or is he just being a scapegoat? It looks like what we hear is made up, the real story we will never know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.82.107 (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

In section 3 about the victims, the numbers don't quite add up. It says 270 total fatalities, and then breaks it down to 189 from the U.S., 43 British and 37 others, which totals 269. I'm not sure what the correct numbers are. Vancegloster (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that any Czechoslovak citizens were present on board Pan Am 103. "Citation Needed" flag has been added. Uncle sam205 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

---

• Pan Am Flight 103 → Lockerbie bombing
• Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial → Lockerbie bombing trial
• Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories → Lockerbie bombing conspiracy theories

– As per WP:COMMONNAME, This incident is almost always known as the Lockerbie bombing. Here are a few sources to support that this is the common name, they all refer to it as the Lockerbie bombing. Some of these are news website some are official government sites. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Similar to this, the article Gimli Glider is not named Air Canada Flight 143 as per WP:COMMONNAME. Another few examples include: The Day the Music Died, Munich air disaster & Tenerife airport disaster. Thank you --JetBlast (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Tenerife is not comparable, since it involved two different flights -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right, my mistake. --JetBlast (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment While I tend to agree with you, note that all the entries in Category:Airliner_bombings are of this form (Airline+Flight Number) -- Bad Gopher Gear (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Do they have common names like this one does? --JetBlast (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per Insights and Ngram. Kauffner (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The ngram would be a lot more convincing if it didn't include an awful lot of false positives, since you just used "Lockerbie" instead of "Lockerbie bombing". There are lots of books that mention the community in Scotland without ever mentioning this particular bombing. A more accurate ngram shows that "Pan Am Flight 103" is used more often than "Lockerbie bombing": [9] Powers ^T 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Pretty much everything that comes up for the term "Lockerbie" is about the bombing, so the single word is the actual common name of the event. To add the word "bombing" is a wikification. If you add this word to "Lockerbie" but not to "Pan Am Flight 103," that will of course skew the results. See this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I admit that my search omits a number of references to the bombing, but at least it's the term actually being proposed here. Lockerbie is quite rightly the article on the town, not a redirect to this article. While your search does show some cases where the town name alone is used to refer to the bombing incident, there are far too many false positives. For example, Pan Am Flight 103: Terrorism Over Lockerbie counts as a result for "Lockerbie" in your search even though it never uses that term as a reference to the bombing, only in describing the location. How you can go from that to a suggestion that "Lockerbie bombing" is a better title is beyond me. Powers ^T 20:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, unusually for a flight number this is well common name used for this incident. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. No bombing happened in Lockerbie. In addition, the current name conforms with the naming convention backed by several wiki projects. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME and common sense; as Vegaswikian says, there was no bombing in Lockerbie. --John (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per previous two editors. I have always felt sorry for the people of Lockerbie - not just for the physical disaster, but for having the burden of that quite inappropriate name. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Do not use this image, it's already been decided.

As discussed before here: this file is not to be used in this article because it is pure fantasy and a violation of WP:OR. No one knows how the plane exploded or how it disintegrated. If the text must not be someone's personal opinion or own "research" so neither should the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.218.61 (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's very possible that a post-mortem of the crash could determine how it was destroyed and that the picture could based off that information. Jeancey (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Air Accident Investigation Branch report on the crash did determine as far as possible how the plane disintegrated. That picture is not from the AAIB report and it doesn't illustrate anything documented in the report. Morag Kerr (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Sandstone in monument

This source [10] clearly says "Stones from this quarry are used in many buildings in the United States, most notably, the base of the Statue of Liberty." The same claim, but regarding the Locharbriggs quarry, may also be found at that article and at Dumfries. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

Removed "the atrocity remains the deadliest aviation incident, as well as" as it is no where near the deadliest aviation incident. See Aviation accidents and incidents [11] 58.6.176.28 (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's no need to do that. I believe you've misunderstood the sentence. Let's analyse it from a grammatical viewpoint, shall we?

The sentence is "To date, the atrocity remains the deadliest aviation incident, as well as the deadliest act of terrorism, to occur in the United Kingdom". The comma that's right before "to occur" indicates that the following clause does not only refer to the clause that's immediately before that, but rather to that one and the previous one.

In other words if it were "To date, the atrocity remains the deadliest aviation incident, as well as the deadliest act of terrorism to occur in the United Kingdom", you would read "as well as the deadliest act of terrorism to occur in the United Kingdom" as one single clause, thus meaning that the accident would be the deadliest incident ever (anywhere), and the deadliest act of terrorism in the UK. And that was your interpretation.

But this has a different meaning. As I've said before, the comma indicates that the clause "to occur in the United Kingdom" refers to both of those which are before that, i.e., the deadliest incident in the UK, and the deadliest act of terrorism in the UK. Try to read the sentence pausing upon each comma, and you'll see what I mean. This is all but grammar! The difference a single comma can make, hah?...

But I recognise this is a sentence that can actually cause this kind of confusion. So, I'm going to change it to "To date, in the United Kingdom, this atrocity remains the deadliest aviation incident, as well as the deadliest act of terrorism". I hope this will be better.

Anyway, though, thanks for informing us of that! I'm always available to help, if you need me! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 16:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

News on Pan Am 103!?

Hi, maybe someone better informed on the subject can make a judgement wether http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/03/lockerbie-2/ is authentically from Craig Murray and if so, incorporate the new information into the article? --T3rminat0r (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess it is authentic. Why would it not be. But it's a blog. So all we're left with is the Daily Mail. Oh dear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm only ever editing in the DE:WP, there the blog-Link would suffice as source until someone more reputable writes about it. Well, you got the information :) --T3rminat0r (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is Craig Murray's official site, legit. AntiqueReader (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Change to emphasis in article?

"Megrahi is innocent" is no longer a conspiracy theory – it is official.

AntiqueReader (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If we can believe "Iranian intelligence officer, Abolghassem Mesbahi.. ", it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"The official version of the chemical make-up of the timer fragment has been entirely discredited, as have claims that the bomb could have been put on board in Malta." AntiqueReader (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the "star" witness was a Libyan double agent. Why happy to believe a Libyan double-agent paid millions of dollars by the CIA, whose testimony "was systematically torn to pieces", happy to believe the guy who "identified" Megrahi but who was dismissed by Fraser ("'Gauci was not quite the full shilling. I think even his family would say he was an apple short of a picnic. He was quite a tricky guy, I don’t think he was deliberately lying but if you asked him the same question three times he would just get irritated and refuse to answer,' Fraser said. The admission attracted grave reactions. William Taylor QC, the man who leads Megrahi's defence, said it was 'scandalous' that Fraser had accepted to present a witness whose credibility he doubted."), and yet express immediate doubt about the confession of an Iranian intelligence officer? AntiqueReader (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"deadliest aviation incident ... deadliest act of terrorism"

"As of March 2014, it remains the deadliest aviation incident as well as the deadliest act of terrorism in the United Kingdom."

This sentence is problematic is several ways.

1) As it appears in the lede section, it should be summarizing sourced material later in the article. There is no such material.

2) It is unsourced and/or WP:OR. While it may or may not be true, relying on our inability to find counter examples to state a negative is a bad plan.

3) The use of "aviation incident" is technically incorrect. Per Aviation accidents and incidents, if there is a loss of life, this would be an "aviation accident". This, of course, is contrary to ordinary usage of the word "accident" (involving lack of intent). An "aviation occurrence" cannot involve death or serious injury. Additionally, we do not have a working definition of "act of terrorism" (does fire bombing London count?).

Discussion on my talk page suggested deleting the section until this can be worked out. If it is obviously true and important to the subject, it should be trivially easy to source (note the well sourced "the bombing was the deadliest act of terror against the U.S. prior to 11 September 2001" later in the article). - SummerPhD (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly "trivially easy" to drop "lockerbie bombing deadlist" into Google to see what happens -- in fact, you could have done that and then added any of the many notable sources found to as many references as you wanted. --Froglich (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It would seem to be even easier to go to the talk page and gripe that I didn't do it for you. Feel free to find a reliable source and restore it to an appropriate location in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

People who booked but did not board

Dear Readers:

Twice I have made edits under this subtitle. Both times my edits have been removed. It is well known amongst all of my friends, and family that I was scheduled to be on board Pan Am 103 while I was serving in the U.S. military. There is an Indian Mechanic mentioned, and I think that I, as a soldier in the United States Army and worthy of being included as well. Let's face it, that's who was being targeted. My name is Gerald Wilkerson. I was stationed in Wiley Barracks, Neu Ulm Germany in Charlie Battery, First of the Ninth Field Artillery Regiment (C 1/9 FA REG). I had booked a flight on Pan Am 103 to go home to Miami, Florida for Christmas vacation. My fellow soldier, a guy named "Mitchell" was preparing to drive me to Frankfurt Airport. Because of the "Alerts" which had been issued, and which the article mentions, my base "Wiley Barracks" issued a "freeze". Because of this freeze, I couldn't leave the base. I had no idea how long the freeze would be in place, so I went back to the barracks to wait. As soon as I reached the barracks, I was notified that the alert had been lifted. So I looked at my watch, and realized that I had barely enough time to catch 103. So I hurried to the PX travel agent, who canceled my Pan Am ticket and got me the very next flight out of Frankfurt to Miami which was a Delta flight. This flight left about 30 minutes after 103. Because all of this happened so quickly, I didn't have time to contact family, after all there were no cell phones or internet at that time, and I was going to take the taxi home anyway. So, I boarded the Delta flight. While I was in mid-air, unbeknownst to me, 103 was attacked.

Meanwhile, this attack became breaking news, and my co-soldiers in Germany, and my family in the U.S. all assumed that I was on 103 and dead. My family, through Red Cross, contacted my barracks, and they confirmed that I had left. All assumed the worse. Meanwhile, Mitchell was driving back from Frankfurt. When he got to the barracks, he noticed soldiers all huddled around a television in the barracks foyer. They were watching the news about the attack, and all were forlorn at the prospect, and shock of losing a fellow soldier. Mitchell asked them what happened, and when they said that "Wilk" had died, he told them that he just got back from taking me to the airport, and that I had indeed gotten out to catch my flight. He soon noticed however that the flight was a Pan Am flight, when in reality he had taken me to the Delta drop off. He quickly informed everyone about the story of the changed flight. They were all overcome with relief, and contacted my family and notified them that I was okay, and on a Delta flight. My family, included extended family, were at the airport to greet me when I arrived. Of course when they told me what happened, I was in shock.

I was a young soldier. I was not seeking publicity, and I was on leave for Christmas. Nobody interviewed me, or contacted me about this, probably because it was a canceled ticket and there was no record of it. I have no idea, but I can say with absolute candor that this happened. I believe it is worth mentioning because it is evidence that the "Alert" that was issued quite possibly saved my life that day.

I am asking that I be allowed to add this into the section for those who booked but did not board. 71.199.83.129 (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear IP editor:

Wikipedia does not accept information on any topic directly from individuals. It is an encyclopedia. One of our foundational policies is verifiability: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." (emphasis added)

Your story might be 100% true. It is not, however, suitable for Wikipedia.

(Incidentally, including your email address here is a bad idea. As this is a very widely read website, you are likely to generate a lot of spam for yourself.) - SummerPhD (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

LHR to JFK : Great Circle Mapper

Great Circle : Heathrow to John F Kennedy Intl doesn't go as north as Lockerbie. Any answer? ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

PA103 was following standard airways before entering the transatlantic crossing system so will not match your great circle route. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Strange but I happen to live right under the Great Circle Route from London Heathrow to New York and daily I see aircraft flying to New York from London and also from New York to London. I also used to fly the New York - London route on a very regular basis and we flew over this part of the UK - Cornwall. I have never flown over Lockerbie unless I was going to the west coast. The path that 103 was flying is actually the Great Circle path to the west coast of America. BTW that fantastic non-American aircraft Concorde used to fly over here morning and evening every day and she certainly flew the GC path London - New York. Can you please clarify why 103 was on an west coast trans-Atlantic route and not the normal east coast trans-Atlantic route. Retired flyer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.82.79 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done See diff. - Location (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Pan Am 103 took what was then known as the "Daventry Departure" route out of Heathrow that night. This was a standard transatlantic route at that time but it was a fair bit north of the Great Circle path for that journey. The aircraft was scheduled to pass over the Isle of Skye, cross the Minch and then the island of Benbecula before heading out into the Atlantic. Whether that was 103's regular route or whether that was a departure from the usual route due to the 90 mph westerly gale that night is not something I have been able to verify, though it is asserted quite frequently. Morag Kerr (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Concorde was able to fly a more direct route as the aircraft's performance allowed a flight profile and routing where no other aircraft (apart from other Concordes) flew. Thus there was no other traffic. The usual route took it out over the Bristol Channel where it accelerated and began its supersonic climb.

Pan Am 103 and other airliners OTOH need to fly through congested airspace and because of this there are a number of different subsonic routings aimed at easing the workload on individual ATC's and so reducing the risk of collisions when operating to a five-mile separation between aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.183 (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Irish Examiner link

I deleted a reference to an Irish Examiner article which stated that the plane's flight path was changed at the last minute. This article is clearly in error - perhaps the journalist was angling for a "local interest" hook. The article stated that the plane was instructed to take the flight path over Scotland at the last minute "due to a 20-minute delay". There was no 20-minute delay. As recorded correctly elsewhere in this article the flight left at 18.04, almost bang on its scheduled gate departure time of 6 pm. Its wheels left the runway at 18.25. This time elapsed is par for the course for flights leaving Heathrow - it takes 15 to 25 minutes from pushing off from the gate to getting to the runway and actually taking off. Source for all this is the trial transcripts. The plane's departure is chronicled in great detail. It is made clear that the flight left on time and there is no mention whatsoever of any change in flight plan. Morag Kerr (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft photo

The current photo for the article is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_747-121,_Pan_Am_JP5894156.jpg. This image has the 747 under Clipper Morning Light, the name before it was changed to Clipper Maid of the Seas.

It should be changed back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_747-121,_Pan_American_World_Airways_-_Pan_Am_AN0076297.jpg as this photo has Clipper Maid of the Seas printed and it is more closer to December 21st, 1988 then the other image. Tntad (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Bag matching policy introduction after Pan Am Flight 103 crash

I'm surprised such a mature article doesn't mention the introduction of positive passenger bag matching brought about by this disaster. RevenDS (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Trivia list of "maybe" flyers

This has been going back and forth a bit, but somehow no one was willing to take this to the talk page: The list of well-known people who may (or may not have) been on the flight. While I appreciate that people "come here for Jonny Rotten", the whole thing is problematic at least. While I'm not against including important cases, it isn't clear to me how "close" those people really were to the event.

Moreover, I didn't find almost no independent coverage in the references; at best these are claims by the people involved. There was only one proper news article that was not a dead link, the rest were personal blogs or an online record cover... but putting it in Wikipedia makes it look like verified facts. If no consensus is forthcoming here, I'll probably take the list out again - for the bad references if nothing else. Averell (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

For whatever reason might have beens are just not noteworthy for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

... it isn't clear to me how "close" those people really were to the event... well, I think the whole point is that they weren't close to it. That's why they're still alive. Provided each "connection" can be sourced, I personally have no problem with that list. I'm sure, individually, the event was a very significant part of their (continued) lives. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The question is: Is their _not_ being on board relevant for the article _about this event_. How their individual lives were affected is neither something we can tell, nor should it be grounds for inclusion. Averell (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I cut it down to one sentence now. The fact that those people's claims/statements were (widely) reported may be noteworthy enough. The details aren't, but whoever is interested in the gossip can follow the refs. Let's see if the world can live with this... Averell (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Relevance to Syracuse

The reverted edit removing Category:Syracuse University alumni was not readied, I just readied Category:Syracuse University.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The alumni category didn't belong. I don't have a problem with the Syracuse University category and there is indirect precedents (See Wichita State University football team plane crash and Southern Airways Flight 932 which have University related categories on them) for including it. Here is a talk page[12] where we can get a wider group of opinions. May I suggest we start up the conversation there? I'm going to sleep shortly and will reply more tomorrow....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I have no strong opinion on this, I just wanted to move the discussion to talk (instead of revert comments). I think if there's a reasonable relation the category may be fine, although it should make sense on both this page and the category page. Averell (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tedder: you full-protected the page for a whole week, seemingly because of this. This seems a bit heavy-handed, as the edit was somewhat minor, not even a WP:3RR violation and everyone had gone to the talk page already. Could you unprotect again? Averell (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I protected because a discussion needed to be had. I'll unprotect (or any other uninvolved admin) if/when there's a consensus. tedder (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I cant see how either of the Syracuse University categories is relevant to an accident article and should not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request 16-JUL-2018

1. Please move {{portal}} from its location under "See also" to its new location under the navbar.
2. Please alter the {{portal}} so that it displays appropriately for this new position, by having the elements display in a border-less portal bar (e.g., {{Portal bar|border=no}}).

Thank you!  spintendo  21:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I noticed the protection has expired, so you should be able to do this yourself. — MRD2014 ^Talk 02:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 Works for me thanks  spintendo  05:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Contradictory information in article

I've picked up a direct contradiction in the text of the section about the Lockerbie residents. The first paragraph states that Father Patrick Keegans had visited the Henry house shortly before it was then destroyed in the fire after the wreckage hit Sherwood Crescent, but the second last paragraph of the same section states that he was planning to visit the same household at around 7PM that evening. Both sentences cite articles from The Scotsman's website, but the two articles are now behind a registration wall and it looks like the earlier citation referring to the first paragraph is pointing to an article which no longer exists. So what's the way forward here? Thanks.

Cadar (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What's the Wikipedia link?

I remember when Wikipedia first took off, one of their earliest admins was caught up in this. She was investigated for involvement and had some shady links to the Stasi. It was quite an interesting and strange story, almost spy vs spy in its nature, yet was supported by declassified documents from several law enforcement agencies. There was mention of it in this article many many years ago but it appears to have disappeared now. Is there a reason it was memory holed? 121.210.33.50 (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Why was the plane in Scotland?

Why did the pilot fly hundreds of miles in the wrong direction (north) when he was meant to be flying west from London to NYC? Jim Michael (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Perception caused by the flat map you use, refer to Great-circle navigation. The route is also changed daily due to the prevailing weather patterns in the North Atlantic. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There's also a nice little diagram at Transatlantic flight. But I think that alarm clock wasn't meant to go off quite so soon? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I realise that because of the shape of the earth, the flightpath would typically be northwest for the first few hundred miles, despite NYC being to the WSW of London. However, that would take the plane over Wales, the Irish Sea, the Republic of Ireland, then across the Atlantic Ocean - without going near Scotland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5H1qmWSubY Travelling hundreds of miles north would lengthen the journey considerably. Jim Michael (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an unreliable blog site source, but it says this: "The usual route to New York is over Ireland, but a northerly flight path was set that night due to ferocious westerly gales. The plane would have headed north over Glasgow, then close to Skye and over Benbecula." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It was not that unusual for transatlantic flights to fly over Scotland. there is no such thing as an "usual route", the route waypoints are declared every day. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Error

Under "Victims", if you add up the totals for the two outermost columns, "Passengers" adds to 244, not 243, and (therefore) Totals adds to 271, not 270. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.166.189 (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that. The source listed only one Jamaican. - Samf4u (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Did it leave on time or not?

(Not a wiki person, just doing some research. Forgive me if I somehow am not following proper protocol).

The current article seems to contradict itself about whether or not the plane left on time. In the "Fight" section, it states:" the flight, which had a scheduled gate departure time of 18:00, left Heathrow airport on time.", referencing a link to "below". The link then states: "but the late departure time (contrary to statement, with reference, above)" linking back to the earlier statement. Which one of these is true? It's not clear from the article (though that might just be me, not being a native English speaker), and those 2 statements seem to contradict one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.201.91 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The two sections seem to link to one another because they contradict each other.

Which one is true? Wikipedia has no interest in deciding.

In general, Wikipedia exists to report what reliable sources say. In most cases, they agree with each other: "the influenza virus causes the flu", "Paris is the capital of France", "Elvis died and was buried at Graceland", etc.

Unreliable sources may report other things ("Elvis is still alive and working at a Kalamazoo Burger King!"). We generally don't bother with that.

Sometimes, however, even the best sources disagree and we end up with conflicting information. Most often, this happens with birth dates (typically when someone is trying to fudge their age) or genuinely contentious issues (e.g., international incidents where countries disagree about who started what and when). When that happens, we generally report who said what and make it clear there is conflicting information.

Here we have different sources saying different things about whether or not the plane left "on time". If it was supposed to "leave" at 8:00, pulled away from the gate at 8:04 and took off at 8:20, was it "on time"? Maybe. It might depend on who you ask.

We don't know if the sources agree on the plane being scheduled for 8:00, pulling away at 8:04 and taking off at 8:20. We don't know if 8:00 means when it was supposed to leave the terminal or when it was supposed to take off. We don't know if 8:04 or 8:20 is "late" or within some allowable window to be listed as "on time". As we cannot find obvious, clear fault in any of the sources (e.g., a newspaper later printing a correction) and the sources all seem to be reliable, all we can do is print what the sources say and make it clear we know they don't agree.

(For a vivid example of the kinds of messes out there, I invite you to consider Charo's birth date.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a very clear explanation, v2.0. I would simply add that these three times all seem to be accepted facts in the timeline and that a flight scheduled for 8.00 but taking off at 8.20 is far from unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Questions

1. Why is this called "Pan Am Flight 103", rather than "Lockerbie bombing" or something similar? 2. Why does the section "Claims of responsibility" include far much more than claims of responsibility?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland:

• 1. Talk:Pan_Am_Flight_103#Requested_move explains the first question.
• 2. I don't know why in this one. You are welcome to be bold if you wish to change it. If somebody reverts you you should go through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

The reality is that most Wikipedia talk pages are not actively monitored. If you want a more immediate answer I wonder if the Wikipedia:Village pump would be better. The people on the page may not like it, but attention on talk pages is becoming less and less.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

New charges in the U.S.

U.S. Attorney General Barr on Monday announced charges against the alleged bomb-maker, called "Abu Agila Mohammad Masud", per the BBC and DOJ press release. Not sure if it merits inclusion in this article but just wanted to mention it so someone knew about it. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"James MacQuarrie" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect James MacQuarrie. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 22#James MacQuarrie until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Flight 103 (disambiguation) § Requested move 13 February 2021

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Flight 103 (disambiguation) § Requested move 13 February 2021. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Flight 103 (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"in flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie"

"while the aircraft was in flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, it was destroyed by a bomb"

Is this statement entirely accurate? While significant wreckage from the plane landed in Lockerbie, did the plane not explode farther to the south with debris falling in a trajectory before, as the article says, dropping onto the town? JF42 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

odd things that happened

IIRC, at about the time of the Trial, held under Scottish law in the Netherlands, the New Yorker, famous for its fact checking, had a long article re this A circuit board fragment, allegedly found embedded in a piece of charred material, was identified as part of an electronic timer similar to one found on a Libyan intelligence agent who had been arrested 10 months previously for carrying materials for a Semtex bomb.

the new yorker wrote, iirc on the last day of the search, two police, who were outside of thier assigned range, found a tiny piece of circuit board, which, amazingly, had a number tht could be traced back to east german pressure switches (the bomb was setup by drop in pressure as plane climbed) and not only that, to a lot of said switches sold to Libya I don't know what to make of this, but it sounds like a conspiracy theory, or goes to show that in real life, amazingingly odd things do occur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Radio ships

In Alleged motives, a reason given is the sinking of two radio ships, and the link leads to an article about two ships which were sold to Libya and later sunk as target practice. Why would this be a motivation? 2600:1700:6530:2F00:1175:EED2:AB89:189F (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)