Talk:The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article may need an appropriate infobox template.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 26, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Vincecan's assertion 2 Official Account 3 Complete Rewrite 4 Changes following AfD debate 5 Bone of contention

[edit] Vincecan's assertion

Vincecan confidently asserted:

"The film was ultimately financed by the Libyan government as an effort to deflect criticism for its role in directing the sabotage of PA 103."

That assertion can only be allowed to stand if there is some evidence – no matter how tenuous – to back it up. Let's be hearing from you, Vincecan!Phase4 20:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

olol, Tiny Rowland is obviously a Libyan agent. LamontCranston 13:11, 09 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official Account

To say that there is an "official" account is kind of a ridiculous notion, and an obvious attempt to marginalize a well-reported story. The Lockerbie bombing is well-covered by the press -- there are literally thousands of mainstream newspaper articles that describe the bombing and who is responsible. These are not part of any "official" arm of any US, UK or any other government report, and to suggest that there is one "official" account is to minimalize the factual account in an attempt to artificially prop-up the conspiracy theory. That violates the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Giovanni33. The mainstream media were following the line fed to them by the US/British governments, see investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial. It is therefore better described as an "official" account.Phase4 10:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The term, "official account" far from being a "ridicoulous notion" is standard practice. Its also neutral, precise, and thus verifiable To change this to "conventional" adds in a POV. The press reports the official story. Its officials who determine the facts for consuption and publication, and its the official account that gets reported on by the mainstream press. The mainstream press are lapdogs for the official version. But, its the offical version that is the issue here, not some pov notion about what is "conventional" or not. That is the vague notion that is best officially left out. heheGiovanni33 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To assume that the mainstream press are "lapdogs" for the "Guvment" is a naive notion unsupported by reality, and reflects a complete misunderstanding of the role of journalism in U.S. culture. Maybe it's that way in your home country, but in the U.S. journalists are immediately suspicious of government explanations, thrive on conflict, and would give their left testicle to break a story that would embarass an Administration spokesman. Here we give Pulitzers to newspeople who uncover those kinds of stories, and fire and publicly humiliate Toadies who are lazy enough to mimic the Government line. You are profoundly misled.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing could be futher from the truth. IN theory, yes, that would be great, but in practice we have lapdogs, and cheerleaders for the govt. and conformity ot established power and the ruling class. I suggest you read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent,", and Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media for an intro to a study of this question. Since I'm an educator, here is an exerpt from the book for you to read for free: [1] When you are done with that I have a dozen other works so you can open your eyes to the reality of the so-called "watch dog" "independant" journalism in the US. Until then profoundly mislead, indeed you are.Giovanni33 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's really the scientifically established account. It's neutral, precise and verifiable. --Tbeatty 05:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that says the official account is scientifically established?Giovanni33 06:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now edited the text saying that "the film disputes the conclusions reached by the official investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103". Problem solved?Phase4 10:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, he can just read the Propaganda Model right here on wikipedia, or he could try and understand that as corporations their primary goal is to maximise profit, minimise cost and increase market share. LamontCranston 09:37, 1 June 2007

[edit] Complete Rewrite

I've given this article a complete rewrite (compare these two versions) to help it pass the current AfD. Mainly I've added a bunch of new sources, which have led to a new section on when it was screened or not screened and what some of the reaction to the film was. I also re-wrote the intro, basically adding new material, and deleted the section on South Africa, which did not seem pertinent (that could be re-added into the US and UK gov reaction section--though the section would have to be retitled--as long as there were sources, however I do not see the need for that).

The "Resume" (why is it called that? Is that a British term for a synopsis of a work of art?) should probably be reworked, but I have not seen this film and am not going to do it. It would also be great if people could copy edit this article and make sure the sources were formatted well enough--and of course make any other changes as they see fit. I think this article has gone from pretty crappy to pretty decent, and hopefully the notability of this film has now been established beyond a doubt. I had never heard of this thing before and it was interesting to learn about it, though I have no opinion about the content of the film.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A valiant effort, which I have tidied up and expanded upon. The PCAST statement (My government and yours know exactly what happened. But they're never going to tell) demanded to be mentioned, as did the revelation of the South African connection. The article must surely now warrant something better than a "stub": perhaps a "B" rating?Phase4 16:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Phase4 for some good corrections, and I agree this has definitely gone beyond a stub but I'm not sure where it would fall (maybe someone from the Wiki Films project could give it a rating).

I'm still not sure about the significance/importance of the so-called "South African connection" even after reading the Reuters piece. I don't think it warrants its own sub-section, as the idea that there was something fishy going on is incredibly speculative (additionally, the section as it stands now does not even really explain what happened, i.e. that high-level South African officials switched flights at the last minute). My recommendation would be to put that and the "controversial statement" section in the "resume" section at the beginning. That section seems to be designed to go over the key arguments of the film, and the South African bit and the "controversial statement" would, I think, both fit in there nicely in abbreviated form. Incidentally since there is a Guardian story and a Reuters story for both of those statements they should be footnoted (I don't think linking to the Reuters story in an old talk archive is at all necessary). Finally, do you know why the first section of the article is titled "resume?" I'm not familiar with that word being used that way--it seems the section would better be title "synopsis" or "main arguments" or something similar.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Résumé, according to my dictionary, is a summary: let's not change just for change's sake! The South African connection, I agree, needs fleshing out a bit and I'll do that. Otherwise, the article looks pretty good, as it stands – thanks largely to you, Bigtimepeace: well done!Phase4 20:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and I'm glad you're happy with the additions. Good job with the South African section as it is much more clear now (though again I think the Reuters article should be footnoted and linking to it is unnecessary). I still think this and the "controversial statement" paragraph belong in the resume section though. They seem very tacked on at the end of the article, whereas they would fit well in the resume section which of course summarizes the main points of the film. Would you be averse to moving that material?

And I do still think the resume section needs to be re-titled. Resume as a "summary" is indeed a valid definition but it is fairly obscure (the main meaning seems to be the same whether in the US, UK, or Canada--i.e. it's akin to a CV) and will confuse some people (as it did me). Also the standard for documentary film articles on Wikipedia seems to be to say synopsis (see, for example, the articles on two recent political documentaries, Sicko and An Inconvenient Truth). I also think the whole resume/synopsis section should be reworked so it reads as a series of paragraphs rather than having a bulleted list in the middle. Thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully take your point and have changed resume to synopsis. The Reuters report has been footnoted, but I have left the "film's revelations" section as it is, in case any further revelations emerge and have to be edited in. Some other minor adjustments and referencing, but I've probably done enough for now.Phase4 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes following AfD debate

Let's not have a re-run of last month's AfD debate by subterfuge. Any changes to the article since 1 September 2007 should be discussed first and agreed on this talk page. I'm reverting the recent changes to allow such discussion here.Phase4 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about Phase4, although my apologies for my reversion as I did not realize that Noahcs's edit made changes beyond substituting a screen shot for a picture of Tiny Rowland (which is the only think I mentioned in my edit summary). However the other changes Noahcs made were incredibly cosmetic (capitalizing some words, wikilinking a couple of things, and fixing/changing a link to the google video of the film). Did you really have a problem with any of these edits? I certainly do not see how they were "a re-run of last month's AfD debate by subterfuge." I reverted to Noahcs's version simply because I think it makes a lot more sense to have a screen shot of the film than a picture of the financier (though I suppose we could have the latter as well, I just don't see the need). If you disagree please discuss, and also explain if you have a problem with the other more cosmetic fixes, though I would not think that you would.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now had a look at the other changes proposed by Noahcs, and agree that they are cosmetic and in no way "a re-run of the AfD debate". The screen shot is problematical though on a number of levels:

• It's small and indistinct
• Noahcs uploaded the image, but did not provide a fair use rationale
• The image has no licensing information

I note from the tag above that a screen shot is not a pre-requisite for upgrading a film/video article from "stub" to "start" class. So, unless the image can be enlarged with suitable rationale/licensing info, I would suggest we do without the screen shot.Phase4 15:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bone of contention

Bigtimepeace has inexplicably edited out all the previously agreed material in this article. I am reverting those edits and await an explanation from BTP.Phase4 09:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "all the previously agreed material in this article" and think that is a gross misrepresentation. The substantive deletions I just made (the first two edits were minor--we do need periods between U.S. and U.K.) removed material that you added on September 30th without any discussion. It was not agreed on by anyone and I only just noticed it. You cannot reprint the entire Francovich letter, or even a huge portion of it which you did. For one thing it is almost certainly a copyvio, and for another it quite clearly violates undue weight. Also it looks very strange to start out a "reaction" section with a reprint of a lengthy letter from the filmmaker--we're interested there in the reactions of others, obviously the filmmaker thinks his film is good. If you want to include something about the Francovich response I would trim it down to one key sentence and put it at the end of the reviews section. That would be more than fair.

I also deleted the section "UN observer at the Lockerbie trial." It started out "It is noteworthy" which is a sign of why it does not belong here (you should not have to explain that something is noteworthy, that should be self-evident). That material simply does not belong in this article which is about the film, it's revelations, reactions to it, etc. Kochler said nothing about the film, he was talking about the trial. It seems to have been put there because it agrees with the film's conclusions, yet you do not put in any information from official sources which, while not commenting on the film itself, disagreed with its conclusions. Thus including the Kochler info not only strays too far from the topic (the movie) it also violates NPOV.

I'm obviously happy to discuss both of these points further. Incidentally I still think the "controversial statement" and "South African connection" need to be in the synopsis section (it just looks bad to tack them on at the end and gives those points more importance than they warrant) and might move them there at some point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The "UN observer at the Lockerbie trial" was added by Max543 on July 10, 2007. I entirely agree that it does not belong in the article and you were right to remove it.

The "period" issue is a NAm thing. We in Britain don't think they're necessary and are happy with US and UK.

On the Francovich letter, I completely disagree. As a verbatim account by the film's producer, it is germane, pertinent and should be included in its entirety. To trim the letter down to one sentence, as you suggest, would be to emasculate it. In relation to the Francovich letter, I don't accept the copyvio idea; nor does undue weight seem applicable or appropriate in this case.Phase4 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Director, not producer. But what do you mean that you don't "accept" the copyvio idea? If that is a full reprint (and perhaps you can clarify that) of a letter published in a newspaper than it is a copyright violation. Letters to the editor become the property of the newspaper, in this case the Guardian--we simply cannot reprint them in whole or even in large part. If you want to use the letter at various points in the article that's fine, but it is wildly illogical to make it the first thing a reader sees in the "reaction" section (look at any article about a film in see if the first thing you see in reaction, reception, or other similar sections is a lengthy diatribe from the filmmaker). Reactions should come from people not affiliated with the movie, obviously. We can also include the filmmakers reaction to the reaction, and I think the first two sentences of the letter are good for that (the rest is a bit of a rant and quite frankly hard to follow at points, particularly the second to last paragraph). I would recommend including those first two sentences at the end of the paragraph which begins "The televising by Channel 4..." in the "US and US government" sections.

I did not realize it was standard in the UK to leave out periods in that abbreviation. If you want to change them all back that's fine, so long as we keep it standard throughout.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect! Allan Francovich was writer, director and producer of the film. As author, copyright of his letter to The Guardian resides with him. The question of copyvio does not therefore arise. All that is necessary is to rename the section in which the letter — in its entirety — appears, and to relocate it. I have done so.Phase4 21:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was misremembering and thinking Rowland produced it, not financed it. I'm fairly certain the copyright is with the Guardian (newspapers standardly claim that letters to the editor become their property), but even if it resided with Francovich it is still a copyright vio, unless you are Francovich and are freely releasing it. Even if that were the case, it still violates undue weight. Let me ask you, why do think reprinting a full letter which is not even particularly well written and which brings up points already mentioned elsewhere in the article is beneficial? I think you should step back a bit and ask yourself that question, because as you'll notice Wikipedia articles are not in the habit of quoting fairly lengthy sources in their entirety. My argument against this remains twofold--it's a copyvio and it violates undue weight. You've asserted disagreement with those arguments but have offered no evidence to refute them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, marshall the arguments (which at the moment are simply your assertions) and when you're ready we'll talk again.Phase4 22:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made the arguments, what are you talking about? You say that Francovich is the copyright holder, I'm guessing it's the paper, either way we agree there is a copyright holder. An official policy is that "Wikipedia has no tolerance for copyright violations in it, and we actively strive to find and remove any that we find." So, again, what is your argument for how this is not a copyright violation since you have already admitted there is a copyright holder? You don't seem to have one. My other argument is that it violates the undue weight clause of another official policy. That says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The single longest passage in this article (as you have it) is a lengthy (copyvio) letter written to a newspaper that repeats some information already in the article and gives far too much play to the filmmaker to essentially editorialize for his film. This is an encyclopedia article, not a John Francovich blog.

So there are my arguments, again. I'm still waiting for you to explain 1) How if there is a copyright holder we are not violating their copyright and 2) How turning over 15% of the article text to a random letter from the director to a newspaper does not violate our NPOV policies, specifically the provisions about undue weight. I'd also like you to explain why you want this pretty uninteresting and rambling letter in here in the first place--how does it help the article? You've avoided that question as well. I await your reply.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read the Francovich letter a couple of times, I've decided that it cannot be quoted verbatim but must be summarised. This has nothing to do with copyright, which I continue to dispute is applicable in this case, nor because of "undue weight" considerations. Rather, it is because the full text is potentially libellous.

So, I've topped and tailed the letter, and edited the rest of the article for consistency. Hope you approve.Phase4 15:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming it down, I don't think there's any problem with the amount of text quoted. However I did move it to an already existing section while retaining the same quote you used. We already have a section about the reaction of the US and UK governments with a reaction to that reaction from Francovich (i.e. his talk about a CIA op against him) so I think it makes the most sense to put the letter after that which is what I've done. Everything you quoted is a response to the US and UK governments--it will make much more sense to the reader if it's in that section rather than a separate stand-alone section that's just about the letter.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent: well done, BTP!Phase4 10:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)