Talk:Patrick Haseldine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Patrick Haseldine article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Patrick Haseldine, has edited Wikipedia as
PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) Phase1 (talk · contribs) Phase2 (talk · contribs) Phase4 (talk · contribs) etc . This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 6, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] AfD comment

  • The new page does not in my view meet the criteria for speedy deletion because its content is significantly changed from previously and now demonstrates the notability of the subject. Phase1 08:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lockerbie/South Africa

It seems that Patrick Haseldine is in a small minority believing that apartheid South Africa was behind the Lockerbie bombing. If, in the first part of 2006, the SCCRC were to refer the Megrahi case back to the High Court for a fresh appeal, Haseldine ought to consider testifying on Megrahi's behalf.86.138.114.175 23:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

His testimony would be relevant if there were to be a re-trial. Any further appeal would be concerned solely with matters that were dealt with at the original trial.Phase1 11:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autobiographical

Portions of this article appear distinctly autobiographical in content and tone. e.g. "On a Saturday at the end of March 1984, Haseldine attended his best man's church wedding in Coventry. After the wedding reception, he was amazed to read in the March 31, 1984 edition of the Coventry Evening Telegraph...".

Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have edited my biography in the past — mainly to add a reference or correct the text. Wikipedia accepts that the biographical subject can do this. The passage quoted above puts the arrest of the Coventry Four in context, and I believe it adds to the readability of the article. Other editors have contributed the bulk of the biographical information, which is fully referenced and verifiable. I am therefore removing the "autobiography" tag.PJHaseldine (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent - the autobiography tags stays then. 13:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs)
I don't see any "admission" of an autobiography in the above response. The article went through the AfD process two years ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Haseldine). This was not an issue then, and should not be now. The tag has to go.Phase4 (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The game is up Mr Heseldine, for all your Wiki aliases. I'll be proposing the speedy deletion of this article as soon as your ban becomes effective.
Under any circumstances a speedy will be removed as disputed, by me, I suggest you change your approach if you want to get anywhere, Mr Socrates. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phase4 = Phase2 = Phase1 = PHaseldine = Patrick Haseldine

  • user:PJHaseldine is Patrick Haseldine, who has admitted making autobiographical edits here (see para above)
  • 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.
  • The article has largely been edited by user:Phase4 and user:PJHaseldine, thereby making this article autobiographical.

The autobiographical tag is therefore completely appropriate - kindly do not remove without discussing here first. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I disagree, merely editing does not make for an autobiography anyway and your assertions need proving, you have offered no diffs, and I await some good diifs to investigate the matter. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the edit history of this article - majority of edits are by these two aliases. How else do you define an autobiography then?

Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO your case remains unproven, I suggest you post on the COI noticeboard before making assumptions. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Socrates2008 is assuming that Phase4 and I are the same individual.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the evidence is pretty damning. Patrick Haseldine mistakenly acknowledged a warning issued to his account user:PJHaseldine, forgetting that he was logged on with his other account, user:Phase4. He tried to cover up his error by changing the signature from Phase4 to PJHaseldine 5mins later. That's a hard fact, not an assumption. Just give it up now - your deception has been found out. Socrates2008 (Talk) 01:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/PJHaseldine for more evidence. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Socrates2008's so-called "damning evidence" leads him to an unwarranted conclusion, which an administrator can confirm. Like Squeakbox above, I am concerned that one editor's opinion is being used to attack this biography. I am removing the autobiography tag and other tags introduced by Socrates2008. They should not be reintroduced without the approval of an administrator.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

While I have trimmed the article considerably and it looks better, IMO. Socrates, you would be better off editing the article instead of aggressively sticking tags on it and treating other editors with a total lack of respect, it doesnt look as if your behaviour has the interest of the article or the project in mind. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank for your efforts in updating this article, which are very, very greatly appreciated. I understand that you might have found my approach "aggressive", however this firmness has been necessary in order to address the militant article ownership that has been displayed here until now. The current issue of article ownership and socket puppetry has come to a head specifically because of the inability of other editors to make any changes without the subject of this article intervening to make them correspond to his point of view. Indeed, I note that even you have been victim to this censorship with your first edit to this article here.
In any event, I'm very glad to see some neutrality and sense starting to appear in this article, and look forward to similar treatment of the other articles "owned" by this editor.
Thank you again.
Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, lets see what happens when his week long block finishes. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged conflict of interest

Socrates2008 has alleged a COI in relation to my edit today. I replied: There is no conflict of interest here. UK Indymedia describes itself as A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues. This morning, I referenced its recent article headed "South Africa blamed for Lockerbie" (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387992.html) into the Patrick Haseldine#Third e-petition section in a perfectly neutral way. I suggest Socrates2008 now reverts his reversion of my edit.PJHaseldine (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You have already been warned 3X above and banned once over WP:COI. So please ignore these warnings and proceed if you'd like an indefinite ban imposed. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Instead of improving the biography by referencing the UK Indymedia article, you prefer to revert it and threaten me with an indefinite ban.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The rules for editing where there is conflict of interest, state clearly that you should avoid or excercise great caution when editing this article. Furthermore, there are specific policies and guidlines that editors need to follow in order to make edits where they have a conflict of interest (i.e. discuss and agree on the talk page first). You have chosen to ignore all these guidlines, despite a very recent ban over this issue, incredibly still claiming that you have "no conflict of interest here".
Prior to the uncovering of your recent socket puppetry, you were effectively able to "own" and censor this and other related articles through some very aggressive editing of other editors' contributions. So until you acknowledge and properly declare your COI, and start approaching these articles in the appropriate manner, I and other editors will continue to take issue with your COI edits.
Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
My "denial of COI" relates specifically to the UK Indymedia article "South Africa blamed for Lockerbie" http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387992.html that I edited yesterday into the Patrick Haseldine#Third e-petition section. Socrates2008 immediately reverted the edit because he abhors the idea that apartheid South Africa could have been behind the death of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, on Pan Am Flight 103 (see Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103#Concerted attack on this article (and others linked to it)).
As suggested by EdJohnston, I agree that Socrates' COI complaint about me should be resolved through discussion on Talk:Patrick Haseldine, to where this comment is being copied.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because:
  1. You replaced a primary source (the petition itself) with a secondary one that portrays you in a better light (POV issue).
  2. UK Indymedia is not considered a reliable source. i.e. It is not a mainstream news organisation with a reputation for checking facts - it's more akin to a blog. It reports with a left-wing perspective, therefore failing the neutrality test. Also, "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."
  3. Three individuals do not make your petition "significant". (Aren't all votes equal in a democracy?) No, you added the names to try to water down how unsuccessful your petition was - and that's called POV.
  4. The current statement about your petition is completely WP:NPOV
This is exactly why there are rules around conflict of interest, and why you should be following them.Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Haseldine; in addition to Wikipedia:Autobiography (which strongly discourages autobiographical edits), please familiarise yourself with the guidelines regarding conflict of interest (COI), specifically the one regarding campaigning under Wikipedia:COI#Examples. You filed a particular petition (outside of WP) and then referenced it (with links) in several articles (I didn't count, but it was at least five). This constitutes campaigning —and probably Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself— clearly a COI. Furthermore, citing a worthless source such as Indymedia UK (effectively an anonymous public notice board) violates rules on verifiability, specifically Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources as Socrates2008 rightly pointed out. You edits seem to now violate three WP policies; Conflict of interest (COI), No original research (NOR) and Verifiability (V). — Deon Steyn (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The first of the four reasons given by Socrates2008 for reverting my edit is demonstrably false — see diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Haseldine&diff=prev&oldid=181168510. This shows the petition was in fact retained (not replaced) as the primary source. The UK Indymedia report did not therefore "replace" the primary source, and I "added" a reference to it in the biography because the full report — headed "South Africa blamed for Lockerbie" — states:
"The theory apartheid South Africa blew up Pan Am Flight 103 is rarely discussed, with the mainstream media concentrating on which arab nation to blame. The great significance of this petition isn't the number of signatories, rather it is who those signatories are. Dr Jim Swire lost his daughter in the explosion, and has campaigned tirelessly for justice. Professor Robert Black is the Scottish legal academic who is known as 'the architect of the Lockerbie trial' — a trial he now derides. Iain McKie is a former police inspector whose daughter Shirley was stitched up by the Scottish Criminal Records Office with false fingerprint evidence. Patrick Haseldine is a British diplomat sacked for criticising the Thatcher government complicity in Apartheid terrorist attacks."
I maintain that there has been no conflict of interest in my adding this specific UK Indymedia reference (though I accept it should have been discussed and cleared here first) and should be grateful if an independent editor would now revert Socrates2008's unwarranted reversion.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
UK Indymedia is most definitely not a reliable source so it can't be accepted, regardless of COI concerns. I repeat, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability. A separate concern is the editing of your own biography which could be a COI. One edit, two distinct problems. — Deon Steyn (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Like Socrates2008, you obviously abhor the "message": South Africa blamed for Lockerbie. Your concerted response is therefore to attack the unfortunate "messenger": UK Indymedia. That's why I asked for an "independent editor" to revert Socrates2008's unwarranted reversion of my edit, which I continue to maintain was not a conflict of interest.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that Patrick has been willing to stay clear of the COI and confine his input to Talk pages. Regarding Indymedia, it is regarded here as a self-published source and thus not reliable. The clearest statement (from anyone) that I could find is this 2005 comment by Jimbo Wales, where he says 'Indymedia is not a reliable news source.' There is also a Wikipedia:Deletion review that you might look up here. Open the entry for 'Free People's Movement', search for 'Indymedia'. One of the participants said 'Indymedia's not a reliable source because anybody can submit an article.' Deletion was affirmed and the use of Indymedia was not accepted. EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Conspiracy theorists

Socrates2008 recently added Category:Conspiracy theorists to this page. I think this requires a reference within the page. Either a self-identification, or a reliable source referring to Haseldine as a conspiracy theorist. Since I'm new to this area, maybe this is something well-known, but it still needs a cite. If this follows automatically from some rule that is observed on other Wikipedia pages, please specify how it follows. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Labelling somone a conspiracy theorist is certainly POV:- it is a pejorative term used it discredit the theories expressed by that individual (and I'm not expressing support for his beliefs.) In contrast his position as a diplomat is fact. The link recently given by Socrates2008 on the talkpages of State-sponsored terrorism in support no way proves Patrick Haseldine is happy to be labelled a conspiracy theorist. All it shows is that someone who registered as PJHaseldine, and linked himself to this article, did not change the description. This is not support as anyone could claim on Wikipedia to be him, and it is policy that Wikipedia is not used as its own reference. Also Wikipedia cautions about comments about a living person - WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.217.219 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. No inference should be drawn from Patrick's non-removal of the term 'conspiracy theorist,' since he has agreed to stay off the article to avoid COI issues. We appreciate his cooperation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI here's why I tagged it. [Category:Conspiracy theorists] says that:
“ Articles related to conspiracy theorists. For purposes of article inclusion, this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under [Category:Conspiracy theories]. For example, the article Area 51 appears under Category:Conspiracy theories (C:CT), so anyone who actively defends conspiracy theories mentioned in that article would be classified here as a Conspiracy theorist. Theories without corresponding C:CT articles will not count for inclusion here ”
  • Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 is by definition a conspiracy theory article, and is categorised as such.
  • PH created this article under his socket puppet alias user:Phase1 and has until now been actively defending the South-West Africa (Namibia) conspiracy theory in it under the alias user:Phase4.
  • PH created and defended the recently deleted South African Luggage Swap Theory redirection pointing to his theory in the above article.
  • PH's is actively petitioning externally for support for his theory. His external petition points to the same wiki conspiracy theory article.
  • PH known here on this discussion page as its chief proponent, and is mentioned as such in the article itself.
  • The [Patrick Haseldine] biography links him with this conspiracy theory
So Mr Haseldine appears to meet all the objective requirements laid down for the [cat:Conspiracy theorists] tag.
PS: Ed, that edit where he left "conspiracy theory" in his biography predates his agreement to stay off the article - I accept though that this is not a requirement for the tag to be applied.
Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the detailed response. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have made a small change to reflect that he was a diplomat, which is notable as it compares strongly to the public view of conspiracy theorists being teenage computer geeks, whilst leaving the description of a conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.64.235 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, you're cutting a very fine line with COI, Mr Haseldine. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, the edit looks good to me and that is what counts. Remember that our BLP policy allows Haseldine certian rights ont his article. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thought so too, which is why I didn't undo the edit and only corrected the spelling. However I don't understand why he can't be upfront about this and is still using an IP address to try to hide his edits. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it is Patrick I would strongly encourage him to be open about his edits. COI only effects controversial edits. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Socrates2008, I am not Patrick Haseldine, just a casual reader who has a long standing concern with the neutrality of Wikipedia. Please could you expalin your reason for your recent revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.64.235 (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't revert your last edit, I corrected the spelling. You're better off following the suggestion above about making open edits, rather than persisting with this precarious approach. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
And you would be much better off not making accusations about the identity of contributors without evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.67.235 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP 81.153.64.235 (talk) is not me. I continue to sign each of my edits, as follows: PJHaseldine (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see there's still some humour here  :-) Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with inclusion into the category Conspiracy theorists. Patrick Haseldine clearly meets (and exceeds) the requirements laid out for that cat (someone even only defending such a theory). The anon editor can understand that their behaviour looks suspicious and they are invited to please sign up with a full account, please see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. — Deon Steyn (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of this talkpage as a soapbox

This page is currently being used as a soapbox, and referenced externally (e.g. here). Kindly limit the dicussion on this talk page specifically to updates to the main article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated in the "Suggested improvements" section below, I invited editors to improve the article by including the text of some or all of my letters that were published in The Guardian between 1988 and 1993. Although you appear to have created Archive 5 on this talk page to accommodate these letters, you have omitted to paste any content to the Archive. Was this an oversight?PJHaseldine (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trial of two Libyans

Reverting because there has been no prior discussion of today's deletion by anon IP 82.22.229.165 of the article's "Trial of two Libyans" section.PJHaseldine (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverting your revert - this article is not about about the two Libyans. Mentioning their case here amounts to soapboxing. Socrates2008 (Talk) 02:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding COI edits

I encourage Patrick to continue to follow the previous deal by which he participates only on the Talk page, and leaves editing the article to others. Though I haven't been following this very closely since January, I've just read the exchanges above. I still have confidence in the ability of Socrates2008 to watch this page and to make article changes when called for. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken: WillCo.PJHaseldine (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested improvements

  • The introduction requires a citation for my public criticism of Margaret Thatcher. I suggest the following primary source: The Intelligence Game: The Illusions and Delusions of International Espionage by James Rusbridger, 1991, ISBN 1850433380. Rusbridger, who died in 1994, wrote (page 141):

"Patrick Haseldine, a second secretary in the Foreign Office, wrote to the Guardian [December 7, 1988] accusing Mrs Thatcher of being soft on terrorism in connection with the case of four South African businessmen charged in 1984 with evading the ban on military exports to South Africa. They had been released on £400,000 bail put up by the South African Embassy and then left the country, refusing to return to stand trial. Haseldine alleged that Mrs Thatcher deliberately allowed them to return home because she did not want them on remand in prison during her talks with the South African president and foreign minister in June that year. Whether the two cases (Father Patrick Ryan and Coventry Four) are really similar is irrelevant to the fact that a member of the Foreign Office was willing to go public with a criticism that would almost certainly lose him his job and career." (see http://books.google.com/books?id=p62LN9EhsKYC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=patrick+haseldine&source=web&ots=mxcb2zX6R9&sig=IkihvG6TuKWldw-V1qtsisBAEVs)

  • Although the letter published by the Guardian on December 7, 1988 is illustrated in the biography, the text of the letter is not covered. Also not mentioned are the subsequent letters in which I accused South Africa of responsibility of the Lockerbie bombing. I suggest these deficiencies are remedied by adding a new section headed Letters to The Guardian (6.2 below).PJHaseldine (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Lockerbie bombing petitions - see new section below.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rusbridger cite moved to article

After reviewing Patrick's proposed reference about the circumstances of his dismissal, I moved the Rusbridger, 1991 citation into the article. PJH has been observing the WP:COI rules by relying on others to make these edits, based on his input here. Please help review these (if you have time). There are more suggestions above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrase 'soft on terrorism' comes from Rusbridger (1991). I'm agreeing that Rusbridger doesn't mention Lockerbie in this passage. Here is a longer quote (Patrick Ryan was an IRA bomb-maker whose extradition to the UK had been refused by both Belgium and Ireland):

The government could well be accused of acting hypocritically in the Ryan affair. And indeed, on 16 December, Patrick Haseldine, a second secretary in the Foreign Office, wrote to the Guardian accusing Mrs Thatcher of being soft on terrorism in connection with the case of four South African businessmen charged in 1984 with evading the ban on military exports to South Africa.

EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ed - happy with that. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: After reading Mr Haseldine's comments on this page, I've added a footnote to highlight that they were not on terrorism charges, but that this term derives from certain people in the anti-apartheid movement, such as Michael Dukakis, calling SA a "terrorist state". Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It was The Guardian that headed my letter of 7 December 1988 The double standards on terrorism. The letter concluded: "Strange that Pik Botha, the foreign minister, was able to find an excuse for not allowing the Coventry Four to stand trial in the Autumn of 1984. Stranger still that Mrs Thatcher failed to denounce Mr Botha's refusal to surrender the four 'terrorists' (cf declaration by U.S. Governor Michael Dukakis that South Africa is a 'terrorist state' http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFDC133BF930A25755C0A96E948260). I'm not sure that Socrates2008 can simply dismiss Michael Dukakis as just one of certain people in the anti-apartheid movement. Had Dukakis defeated George H. W. Bush in the November 1988 US Presidential Election, he would have put South Africa on the US list of terrorist states.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Letters to The Guardian

For the full text of ten letters published in The Guardian between 1988 and 1993, please refer to User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3.PJHaseldine (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lockerbie bombing petitions

Patrick Haseldine responded (comment number 6) to an article published on 8 March 2008 by The Glasgow Herald entitled Megrahi Defence Team Loses Bid To Access Secret Document,as follows:

"In the context of the disputed 'timer fragment', you might like to know that, on Friday 7 March 2008, Number 10 Downing Street rejected my e-petition to Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, in the following terms:

Hi, I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected. Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:

  • Issues for which an e-petition is not the appropriate channel.

Further information: Individual cases are a matter for the Home Office. -- the ePetitions team"

The full text of the rejected petition is here.

Wikipedia editors are encouraged to include a reference to this rejected petition at a suitable place in the article, as well as a mention of the previous petition which closed on 29 December 2007 and called for a United Nations Inquiryinto the death of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing (see http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/UNInquiry/).PJHaseldine (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dossier of evidence (incriminating South Africa for the Lockerbie bombing)

Apart from the initial sentence, the following self-explanatory text has been removed from User:Pyrotec's version of the article of 3 December 2007:

"Bringing South Africa to book
Haseldine continued to update the dossier and eventually emailed it (a single-page report entitled Lockerbie bombing: further evidence to implicate South Africa together with 14 attachments) in March 2000 – two months before the start of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial – to the newly-appointed Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, and to the defence lawyers for the two accused Libyans. The report highlighted comments made by Anton Alberts, a law lecturer, at the September 1998 South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) hearing into the 1982 bombing of the ANC's offices in London (for which apartheid-era superspy, Craig Williamson, and seven former agents of the Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB) applied for and were granted amnesty).[1] Alberts was reported to have said:
'If you look at the Lockerbie disaster - this is very similar. I think Britain would like to see these guys are prosecuted in England even though they get amnesty here.'[2]
He became a regular contributor to the Pan Am 103/Lockerbie Discussion Forum website (now defunct) and in December 2000 published an article there with the title Lockerbie Trial: A Better Defence of Incrimination."[3]

I recommend that the above text, which I have further wikified and referenced, should be reinserted into the article under the Attempts to incriminate South Africa heading, thus replacing the current Campaign section.PJHaseldine (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no verifable reference here to what Haseldine has done (Wikipedia is not a verifiable source). As for the Alberts reference, let's put it in his article if appropriate, but not here. 217.28.34.132 (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The dossier of evidence that I sent to the Lord Advocate in December 1995 (and updated in March 2000) included the following:

  1. My letter published in The Guardian of 7 December 1988.
  2. Subsequent letters to The Guardian starting on 7 December 1989 in which I accused apartheid South Africa of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing.
  3. Swedish iDAG newspaper articles of 12, 13 and 14 March 1990 together with an English translation of them which described UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, as being Under pressure and nervous before the death crash.
  4. Reuters report of 12 November 1994 which was the first public confirmation that a 23-strong South African delegation headed by Foreign Minister Pik Botha had been booked to travel to New York on Pan Am Flight 103 for the signing ceremony at UN headquarters on 22 December 1988 of the Namibia Independence Agreement, but had cancelled their booking on that flight.
  5. My correspondence with Edwin Bollier of Mebo which invoked an article in The Observer of 23 January 1994 which claimed that the MST-13 timer fragment found at the scene of the Lockerbie crash "might have been planted by Western intelligence agencies seeking to frame Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi's regime".

In 2005, I referred this documentation together with my December 2000 article Lockerbie Trial: A Better Defence of Incrimination" to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which was then conducting a review of the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.PJHaseldine (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This misses the point. What verifiable evidence is there that a dossier was submitted? Checkeroffacts (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More soapboxing

Mr Haseldine unfortunately continues to post unverified self-published information into this talk page as well as his user talk page, then "referencing" it either from external websites or other Wikipedia articles, (e.g. here). See verifiability and soapboxing. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:PJHaseldine/Archive_3 has been nominated for deletion - see Miscellany for deletion Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)