Talk:Release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi

Notability statement

WP:EVENT requires that "[a] national or international news event must have some degree of ongoing coverage in order to be notable. It must go beyond trivial. Events that are reported in national or international news for one day only, such as those for the purpose of being an "amusing" story, and are quickly forgotten, are not notable." This story engendered ongoing coverage, and its long term impact is unknown (see, e.g., [1]).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Simon, I'm not going to start editing your article an hour after you added it, but I would suggest you give serious consideration to the following points that I may well seek to rectify eventually if no-one else does -

a) The words compassionate grounds should not be in inverted commas - it's a standard legal term and therefore it's as silly as an article saying someone was convicted of "murder".

b) The game you're playing by inserting a very, very lengthy quote from David Aaronovitch immediately after Henry McLeish's response to Robert Mueller is very obvious for all to see. It's putting McLeish into a kind of 'sandwich' to neutralise the effect of his words. And why pick David Aaronovitch out of the air to quote from extensively on the subject of Mueller's intervention, and not any other newspaper columnist? Why not Alex Massie or Alan Cochrane, for instance, who both joined with McLeish in lambasting Mueller? I think we know why. The Aaronovitch quote should go, or at the very least be slotted into the article in a more appropriate place.

c) Admittedly a tad less important, but the use of the word 'whence' was silly before and it's still silly now. Sofia9 (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is a content fork; believe it or not, I very much want to ensure that it is not a POV fork. Regarding your point (a), I think the premise is right but the application off. It would be a problem if we said "on 'compassionate' grounds." That wold make the insinuation that I think you're inferring. Quite the opposite, here, however: saying "compassionate grounds," to my mind, indicates that this is a preexisting thing, not something that MacAskill made up. Regarding your point (b), I'm open to other ways to present the point. If we can summarize David's rebuttal to McLeish in substance without creating OR or SYNTH problems, I'm open to that; I have no particular attachment to using David's precise wording.

And regarding your point (c), it wasn't silly then, it isn't silly now, and it isn't going to get any more so. The word is perfectly standard - so much so, in fact, that it has an almost-standard corruption (the unspeakably hideous and ridiculously redundant "from whence"). Along with cognate terms like thence, it offers an elegant and concise way to express a point that would otherwise require phrasing that are either longer, uglier, or at least more awkward. We really shouldn't have to write poorly out of feat that some readers may have a niggardly vocabulary. Our target audience is a person of average or better wits and erudition. Such a person, encountering the word, is ipso facto in one of two positions: either they know the word, or they know to look it up and appreciate the opportunity to learn it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The formation is archaic. If anyone other than Simon Dodd thinks "whence [they] came" is an improvement over "where [they] came from" please say so. Until then, Simon, you would appear to be in a minority of one.GideonF (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To be more specific on the Aaronovitch point, I think either it has to go altogether or be accompanied by the contrary views on Mueller's intervention from another 'commentator', perhaps Alex Massie or Alan Cochrane as I suggested. I just cannot see the justification for plucking Aaronovitch out of the air like that, he's no more or less significant a figure than any other commentator. More to the point he's certainly far less significant a figure than either the head of the FBI or the former First Minister, and yet you've bizarrely opted to give his views more space than either of those two people.

As my point about 'whence' was a minor complaint about unnecessarily fusty language and not about POV, I won't argue the toss on that with you any further. I have a feeling others might, though... Sofia9 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Roy

I have removed a lengthy blockquote that was inserted, summarizing it instead. It certainly didn't belong in the article in its longer form, but I don't understand why it belongs here at all. Kenneth Roy (note redlink) is a non-notable journalist who edits a non-notable... I don't know what, presumably publication, the Scottish Review (note redlink). The source given is (wait for it)... Why, yes, the Scottish Review itself.

Two obvious problems. Do we care what Roy thinks in the first place? Why is his opinion worth inclusion? WP:UNDUE warns that "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Wikipedia is not a platform for every person with an opinion and a soapbox. And assuming that we care what he thinks, dubitante, is Scottish Review a reliable source? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well indeed. By the same token, do we care what a bunch of American politicians have said for their electorate, regarding a Scottish decision to release a Libyan convict? I mean we need to mention their (largely ill-informed) opinions, but I don't think (by similar logic to that above) that we need to reproduce lengthy quotes from them. What do others think? --John (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

On the whole it is probably a good idea to avoid bloc qoutes from anybody (with the possible expection of the most immediate participants, MacAskill and Megrahi). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2009(UTC)

I agree that there should not be paragraph-length block quotes from anyone unless what they have to say is staggeringly important. But you're lighting a strawman, since there are no such quotes in the article from politicians of any kind, let alone American. As to the relevance of American concerns, see the Aaronovich article cited. As he put it, to claim that it's no business of Americans - who caers what they say - "is far more stupid and arrogant than anything the Americans have so far done or said concerning Lockerbie." Quite so. It would be stupid and arrogant to imply that this is in some way a purely Scottish decision with no ramifications or interactions with the wider world. I take it that you mistyped, John, and meant to say something neither stupid nor arrogant.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think Simon has just completely given the game away as to why he was quite so keen to insert that David Aaronovitch quote in the first place, even though on its own merits it's no more or less notable than any of the other countless responses from British commentators to Robert Mueller's intervention. The Aaronovitch quote really has to go now, or else be accompanied by an alternative journalistic viewpoint. I shall try to dig up the relevant article by Alex Massie. Sofia9 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I already responded to that above. Aaronovich directly rejoins, and thus balances out, McLeish. The relevant standard is balance, not so many commentators and so many politicians. And you should realize that the Aaronovich quote was almost entire removed yesterday in response to your concerns. It's a little much to ask more.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Massie quote for the reasons just mentioned. Adding it unbalances matters: the balance against which Aaronovich's quote leans is McLeish's quote.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wholly incorrect. The McLeish comment is a rebuttal of Mueller - including it is therefore balance against the quoting of Mueller earlier in the article. You then destroyed that balance by plucking from the air a quote from a preferred journalist who rubbished McLeish's rebuttal. The only ways to rectify that imbalance are either to a) include an alternative journalistic viewpoint, or b) remove the Aaronovitch quote. As you didn't like the former, I;ve instead done the latter. Sofia9 (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Scope of article

The article as currently constituted could better be entitled "International reactions to the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi". We could rename it and/or take it to AfD, or we could try to develop it into something worth keeping. At the moment it is a POV fork and a WP:POINT violation. That doesn't mean it couldn't become something worthwhile. In fact I was already thinking along similar lines myself. What do others think? --John (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd support such a change of title, there are already precedents such as International reaction to the Gaza War and International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008. As it currently stands the article contains very little about the actual release of Megrahi and is devoted almost entirely to reaction to that release.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying this is a POV fork - there are grounds for such articles - and this has probably generated enough media interest and commentary to justify a seperate article rather than shoe-horning it into the Megrahi and MacAskill articles. On the other hand the two articles I've highlighted also show the problems of such a reaction article - both, while probably seeming highly relevant and notable when they were created, now come across as overkill. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It is neither of those things. It raises no problems under POINT because it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia and doesn't exist to prove a point; it thus fails both the threshold conditions of POINT, not to mention the "straight face" test. ("Can you repeat this accusation with a striaght face?" No.) Nor is it a POV fork; that would require, at very minimum, that the article to not only fail NPOV. It doesn't. As to the name of the article, it should be left as it is unless there is some intractable deficiency in the title or a clearly superior alternative suggests itself. Your title is both ungainly and would artificially limit the scope of the article for absolutely no good reason.

I agree that the article could be improved, but policy references and proposals so inapt and ill-taken as to preclude an assumption of good faith (combined with the fact that it was your ingtransigence that required this split in the first palce) are not the way to improve it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

After merging in some additional material from the Megrahi article at User:TheRetroGuy's suggestion, the proposed rename is even less tenable. If the article was renamed now, the relevance of some of the material would be drawn into question, and it would be an act of staggering bad faith - beyond even MacAskill's most ardent partisans, one hopes - to first demand that an article be renamed and then to demand that material be removed because it isn't relevant to the focus implied by the new title.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

I think this sort of "reaction heavy" article suffers badly from systemic bias. We have loads of opinions from media and people in the US and the UK. We even have people offering opinions on how the UK and US media responded to the release. Yet apart from two single lines about Gaddafi and Mandela, we have zero information about how the rest of the word responded. What about the Libyan press? What about the rest of the Arab world, or the rest of Europe, or Africa or Asia? [2][3][4][5][6][7] Frankly, that would be much more informative and balanced global perspective than noting what "Democratic Senator Ben Cardin" thinks!

Furthermore, almost half the article is not about his release at all, its about allegations of political horse trading. Either this content should be trimmed into an appropriately weighted aftermath section, or else the scope (and title) of the article should change to reflect the content. Rockpocket 01:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• It was an attack on the United States that took place in Great Britain. The victims were, for the most part, American and British. It was an Anglo-American investigation; the bomber was convicted by a Scottish court and incarcerated in that country. It's hardly a surprise, therefore, that the article is focused on what the countries involved think. That isn't bias, it's due weight. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  It was not an 'Anglo-American investigation. The FBI was not an investigator of record, had no jurisdiction to undertake any investigation within the United Kingdom and was simply one of several investigatory bodies providing assistance to Dumfries and Galloway. Americans may find this hard to swallow but, who cares?31.49.28.120 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yet oddly the title says it is about the Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi who is a Libyan who returned to Libya on said release. Its systemic bias alright. Rockpocket 01:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's preventing you from adding in reaction from around the globe. It would be good to add reactions from other countries (particularly Libya + other countries that lost citizens in the attack) but bearing in mind that sources need to be English-language and that rightly or wrongly this has been viewed as principally a American/British-Libyan affair or simply a British-Libyan one it isn't surprising that the reactions in these countries may dominate. I don't think you can call that systematic bias.

I'm quite impressed that you managed to find those articles from around the world, but even they seem to spend at least as much time describing the Anglo-American politics and reaction to the release rather than presenting a view from their own respective countries. From what I can tell from a brief google search Australian and Canadian newspapers, for instance, just report about the reaction in Britain and America - they generally don't offer an opinion of the reception in Australia or Canada.

With regard to changing the title, what would you suggest? It's already been proposed it be changed to "international reaction to the release of...", but it is usually quite a while for a single, common name to emerge to describe an affair like this - so the current title makes a fair bit of sense. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the title, I simply think we should be a little more judicious in giving appropriate weight to material about the subject (his release). To that end, I feel the section on the aftermath should be seriously pruned, I feel the "reactions" sections could do with less detail and more summary; balanced by more actual detail about his release to Libya and less about the rhetoric expressed by every outraged Tom, Dick and Harry in the US and some sections of the UK. Its for this reason I don't wish to simply add more reaction, I'd much rather the article be edited for balance and scope. I'm happy to attempt this - I some experience in doing so - but am not particularly interested investing the time if it is simply going to get reverted en masse. Rockpocket 07:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note about the "aftermath" section: the article was initially created by pulling the section from the MacAskill article and blending in related material from the Megrahi article. Having done that, an editor on the Megrahi talk page suggested that the "aftermath" section in the Megrahi article should also be transferred, insofar as it made more sense to cover it in this article than that one. I agreed and moved it over without any major editing. The upshot is that I'm less familiar with that material, had less to do with its evolution, and have less attachment to it. Changing it's fine by me.

As to "every Tom, Dick and Harry in the US" - hardly. Let's think about who's in the article. The families of the victims. Not hard to see the connection there. The Secretary of State, the government's officer in charge of foreign affairs; the Attorney General, the government's officer in charge of legal affairs; and the President, who dabbles in both. Again, an easy, direct connection, since this is a question of both foreign and legal affairs. The senior Senator for the state whence a huge block of the victims came, and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Not difficult to see their connection. Then there's Bob Mueller, who is interesting because his reaction is doubly notable: the reaction of the head of the FBI might be thought relevant in vacuo, but it becomes all the more so when we realize that he was also a lead investigator in the Lockerbie bombing. All these people have a direct connection, then, to the matters at hand, and it's a little strange to suggest that we're just quoting a random assortment of, you know, people grabbed off the streets of Los Angeles à la those bits Leno used to do.

We also note the reaction of a smattering of high-profile newspapers and polls for broader context. I think that's fair game. The low-hanging fruit here are Lieberman and Cardin. Cardin was originally added to demonstrate that Lieberman's call for an inquest was a lone voice in the wilderness. My recollection is that others have since joined that call, so there may be merit to mentioning it elsewhere in the article and simply mentioning that these two have joined it. If Cardin is relevant only as a function of Lieberman, however, we should consider whether Lieberman is relevant enough in the first place, and I'm open to the possibility that it should be taken out.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Taken individually, its not difficult to justify any and each of the reaction quotes. Taken together we risk a due weight problem. Articles need to be looked at as a whole, not as individual bits of information. Its obvious you are have interest in the US response to his release. Nothing wrong with that, and your coverage of that response is comprehensive, neutral and well sourced. The problem comes when we have comprehensive coverage of one aspect of an incident but almost no coverage of another aspect. The danger is that the article becomes a coat rack for (US-centric) criticism of his release, even if that is not the intention. This is perhaps the most challenging part of article writing, I think, there needs to be a balance between improving articles by adding more information (which is a good thing, of course) and overburdening the article with too much specific information about any given aspect. This is often aggravated by the fact Western media tend to focus overwhelmingly on one aspect (as in this case). Often this balance can be best achieved by having an independent, experienced editor come in and copy edit the article once all the relevant information is present.

As I said, I don't feel I am knowledgeable enough on this subject to get deeply involved, I just wanted to offer some thoughts and suggestions from an outside perspective. If there is interest in a copy edit as I described, then I can be found at my talk page. Rockpocket 17:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good offer, Rockpocket, and I agree with your points above. I think we need to lose all the lengthy quotes and all the opinion polls, for this to become a viable article. --John (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The opinion polls stay. The quotes are negotiable.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm popping a tag on the article to reflect this disagreement. --John (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket, A few responses. First, if it is true that the article's "coverage of [American reaction] is comprehensive, neutral and well sourced," but you are concerned that we have "almost no coverage of another aspect," that justifies adding more to the article on "other aspects," not removing anything from a section that is, we are told, "comprehensive, neutral[,] and well sourced." Cf. WP:PRESERVE. Responses patterned after John's -- seizing on your comment to justify his repeatedly-demonstrated desire (compare his comments here with his edits at Kenny MacAskill over the last fortnight) to skin, gut, and fillet that section -- are therefore inapt.

I must add, paranthetically, that I disagree that the article offers "comprehensive coverage" of American reaction. It doesn't. It offers a modest overview. That fact makes removal of material even less appropriate.

Second, you say that there's a risk of the article becoming a coatrack for American criticism of the decision. I don't see it. The article features a section on British reaction that is significantly longer than the section on American reaction, and it features (as you'd expect - more on this anon) significant coverage of both criticism and support. I have no intention of deleting this section in whole or significant part, and would not support such a change. I therefore do not find it credible that the article could now be regarded as, or is in any danger of becoming, a coatrack for American reaction, criticism of the decision, or, least of all, American criticism of the decision.

Moreover, it should be kept in mind that WP:UNDUE does not mandate equal time. It mandates proportionality. Significant viewpoints should be represented in proportion to their prevalence. An artificial attempt at evenhandedness can itself represent a failure of NPOV, see Okrent's Law. That's why the section on American reaction barely mentions anyone supporting the decision: because almost no one does. When an idea is too deer-in-the-headlights wide-eyed crazy liberal for Barack Obama, you can be pretty sure that the rest of the country thinks it's kooky.

That segues into my third and last point. You are concerned that it's problematic for us to "have comprehensive coverage of one aspect of an incident but almost no coverage of another aspect." Undoubtedly. But that's a red herring. The unspoken premise is that there is another aspect to cover; that isn't always so, and it isn't clear to me that it's the case here. The relevant metric is whether all significant actual viewpoints are represented. It does not follow that merely because the article predominantly features American and British reaction that the article is faulty. To say it is, your burden is to show that there are other significant viewpoints that have been excluded - not merely that there could be, hypothetically, or that there should be, or that there might conceivably be. We shouldn't invent such viewpoints -- perhaps by hunting down the opinion of an obscure French politician and covering them far out of proportion to their importance, just so we can say that the article includes French opinion.

To the extent you are suggesting that deleting material is a remedy for your concerns (and it's not clear to me whether you are), I therefore disagree. If you have no other significant viewpoints to add, the concern is purely hypothetical. While the emergence of relevant material further down the road will presumably justify adding that material then, the mere possibility of that happening cannot justify removing other material now. To conclude otherwise is to invite an epistemological nightmare. We must accept that articles are not defective simply because they don't at any given time cover all the conceivable information that will ever exist and that could ever be integrated. The encyclopædia would be paralyzed if we had to balance content against not only the material available now, but against the entire constellation of information that might ever exist.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Boycott

Is the boycott added in this dif sufficiently notable for inclusion, given its failure to launch. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it has been widely reported and is in a sense notable and clearly verifiable. Harks back to all that freedom fries nonsense. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was questioning that as well. The 169 google news results in numerous languages certainly confirm the "widely reported", but from a long-term perspective I don't think it's worthy of inclusion, I suspect that calls for boycotting (or the reports about it, at least) will die down rather quickly. Amalthea 22:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it begins to die down, or is seen to have an effect, after being widely reported in both regular media and industry trade papers the boycott is a part of the now historical events surrounding the release. Is it really our place to rewrite history? The Ghost Army (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Deciding whether any given detail about an event is sufficiently notable as to be encyclopædic is hardly "rewrit[ing] history." Not every aspect of a story is historically notable; the color tie MacAskill wore when he made his decision is lost to history, and frankly, I suspect that history's none the worse for it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW} 23:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, the colour of Mr. MacAskill's tie is of no relevance, and was certainly never reported on during coverage of the events surrounding the release. However, the "Boycott Scotland" campaign was featured in many, if not most, of the articles concerning the release during that first week, and continues to be reported on. The omission of any mention of the boycott would seem odd, and this article incomplete, to anyone following the events in the media, or looking for an accurate portrayal of the response to the release. The Ghost Army (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can jump from a certain number of ghits to say "widely reported". We assume that anything included here is notable enough to fulfill our criteria for inclusion. We need to be guided by what the sources say. I've removed "widely reported" on this basis. --John (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Meyer quote

"The United States was given what the then British ambassador called a "clear political and diplomatic understanding" that Megrahi would serve his full sentence in Scotland." That is of course an accurate reflection of what Christopher Meyer asserted a few days ago, but I'd suggest the fact this is mentioned in the background section without any clarification would tend to give the impression this was something he said on the record at the time, rather than retrospectively. In any case, as there is a dispute over exactly what the 'understanding' consisted of, it would be more NPOV to find a wording that reflects that dispute, rather than one that only covers the American 'maximalist' interpretation of the agreement. Sofia9 (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Meyer is not an American, so it seems all-but tautological to point out that his characterization of the agreement is not "the American 'maximalist' interpretation."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm starting to notice that the Dodd strategy does seem to involve an overly-liberal use of the word "tautological" when all else fails. As I began by quoting a line stating that Meyer is the former British Ambassador, it seems "all-but tautological" to note that your response is a very silly one indeed. And as you've completed evaded the issues I raised, all I can say is that I hope someone rephrases the background section to give it some much-needed context and balance, and if they don't I may well have a go myself at some point. Sofia9 (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the first time I've been described as "overly-liberal"! At any rate, the issue you raised is adequately rejoined in my comment above, as anyone can read, and does not require further discussion. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As you're finding the concept of discussion so distasteful, I shall simply restore my wording without troubling you any further. But if you choose to revert it again, I'm afraid you'll simply have to resign yourself to the inevitability of further discussion. But look on the bright side - at least that'll give you yet another golden opportunity to use the word 'tautological'. I'm still trying to work out how to get in 'floccinaucinihilipilification'. Sofia9 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Innuendo

Am I the only person who thinks this article is almost mischievously including content to imply dodgy dealings there’s no evidence for? Should the “links with BP” become “Allegations of Links with BP”. And why in "Decision for Release" are there several lines about Dr Sikora when nobody’s ever even suggested his prognosis in any way contributed to the release? This article needs trimming to contain facts and not innuendo. Zagubov (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As do I. And unless we merge this Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi we are going to have continual problems with editors adding inappropriate material to one or the other. Certainly people watching one should watch the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the article about?

Does anybody know the point of this article? I've re-read this article all the way through several times and, despite the title, nowhere does it mention he was actually released and went away. There's plenty of build-up to it, who authorised it etc, then it jumps straight to shed-loads of reaction to the decision, and conspiracy theory stuff but no actual mention of the release actually occurring, e.g of him leaving jail, UK-controlled airspace, or arriving in Libya. Should this be merged? Or maybe this is a fine article and and I've missed the whole point of it? Zagubov (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• The mechanics of the release are mundane. He got on a plane; he flew to Libya. Is there really any point in wasting a reader's time stating the obvious? The significance lies in the decision—a decision that was obviously wrong at the time and has only grown more notoriously and obviously so in the intervening time—not its execution.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Surely you mean to say the decision was disputed rather than "wrong". Plenty said it was right. We shouldn't be surprised if plenty more say it now that the details are emerging which seem to match the Scottish government’s version of the release. Zagubov (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No, I mean it was wrong. It was obviously wrong at the time because Megrahi should not have been released even if he had actually had terminal-stage cancer. It is even more obviously wrong in hindsight, because even if we stipulate that end-stage cancer would be grounds for release, Megrahi didn't have it. No details have emerged that vindicate MacAskill's decision, and it's hard to imagine any that could: We knew they were wrong then on their premise, and we know now that they were wrong on their premise and their facts. Either is enough; both is a slam dunk. I was surprised that anyone thought it was right at the time; I'm wearily unsurprised that in hindsight, they lack the intellectual honesty to admit that they were wrong.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a look here and here, for example. Thincat (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And see what, exactly? That Scottish law allows for compassionate release in the discretion of the Justice Minister? No one disputed that such authority exists. The question at the time was whether it ought to be exercised in this case, where a mass murderer had end-stage cancer (it was clear at the time that the answer was no), and in hindsight, we know that he did not have end-stage cancer, because he is still alive (making it even clearer that the answer should have been no). If your point is that the parole board signed off on the release (link 1), that is irrelevant because even MacAskill has said that the responsibility lies with him and him alone.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Simon, the fact that you're still trying to elevate your own subjective opinion to the status of fact is extremely troubling, especially in the context of a discussion page on an encylopedia entry. The vast majority of people who thought the release was right at the time still do, and instead of haughtily dismissing that as "intellectual dishonesty" you might want to step back and ponder whether there are good reasons why those people's views have not changed. I pointed out to you eighteen months ago that there is no precedent for a Justice Minister to turn down a clear recommendation for compassionate release. Indeed, if he had turned it down, it's conceivable Megrahi could have had that decision overturned by the courts as being unreasonable. Now it's obviously true to say that the prognosis given for Megrahi turned out to be incorrect - but doctors are not prophets, and the decision could only be made on the basis of the best estimates available at the time. Indeed, MacAskill observed when announcing the release that it was perfectly possible Megrahi could live longer than predicted. Sofia9 (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this discussion down please? This is not a forum, see WP:SOAP. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Which was rather the point I started by making, Doug, so I'm happy to comply. Nevertheless, on a point of pedantry, it's usually a good idea to wait to see if the people concerned go along with your request/instruction before 'thanking' them for doing so. Sofia9 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Later revelations" section

This needs some work. It needs more sources and to whatever extent its substance may be salvaged, it needs to be rewritten from the ground up in a neutral tone.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring article (secton 3) to make it more neutral

Does it seem this article isn't just over-long and repetitive but also potentially misleading?

In section 3, apart from the Scottish decision section shouldn't there just be a "Foreign Reactions" section to this Scottish decision. Globally the reaction was positive (except for one country)

Instead, it has a "U.S. Reaction" and "Other Reactions" section as if the non-UK world had just two parts, an American and a non-American one.

One section seems to be a compendium of negative quotes disproportionate to the article and undermines its neutrality to the extent that a foreign visitor would struggle to understand that this was globally seen as a positive move. That section's rambling and repetitive and the other's concise. See if you can figure out which is which.

Is this focus on one foreign country's negative reaction helpful? Especially with the later revelations from Wikileaks and other sources?

Perhaps a serious re-write is needed

And let's not rule out merging it with the al-Megrahi article if we can't make this more sensible. Zagubov (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Reason for Release: New Information Discovered

I found this article discussing the reason for the release of al-Megrahi being linked to "a £400 million arms-export deal to Libya", according to an email "sent on June 8 2008 by Sir Vincent Fean, the then UK ambassador (in Tripoli), to Tony Blair’s private office".

I thought it contained some very interesting information which doesn't seem to be discussed in this Wiki article so far, but I don't know much about editing Wiki pages properly, so I thought I'd add the information and reference here and let someone else write it into the article. Thank you, hope I did this right! 71.179.211.171 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting but it adds little that was not already known; I think that it as been covered elsewhere in the article that the British Government were originally under financial pressure to include Megrahi in the PTA for commercial advantage. If I remember correctly this came to naught as the Scottish Government insisted he be excluded, and the two governments were to put it mildly mutually uncooperative.

His eventual release was via a different procedure using non-commercial criteria, with no evidence of financial gain despite markedly intense media interest and scrutiny. Zagubov (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"After a three-year joint investigation by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation...." I'm sure a good many intelligence and law enforcement bodies undertook their own 'investigations' but neither they, nor the FBI, are/were investigators of record, and had no UK jurisdiction in Scotland or in the trial. This was Dumfries and Galloway's investigation. Americans will scream and stamp about this. Let them. It makes no difference to Scottish justice. 31.49.28.120 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090901004510/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iCpNccRWlg_qME4nocYStu9vB_pQ to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iCpNccRWlg_qME4nocYStu9vB_pQ
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090812030521/http://www.dcthomson.co.uk:80/mags/post/news1.htm to http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/mags/post/news1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090828044513/http://www.breitbart.com:80/article.php?id=CNG.d104179820db91845f032fd0bf3f73ab.5b1&show_article=1 to http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.d104179820db91845f032fd0bf3f73ab.5b1&show_article=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)