You seem to have misread my explanation. We are not in agreement that the source does not support the current text. I feel that it does and you feel that it does not. I also feel that the source does not support your requested change, which makes it seem that the association with Libyan intelligence is an unsupported allegation of the FBI. I did not ask for references, since I feel the current text is adequately supported, but most of these new sources also do not support the change you requested. "...an F.B.I. investigation concluded that his job was a cover for his work as an intelligence officer for the Libyan intelligence service, which Mr. Megrahi denied but which the court accepted..." does not condense down to "the accused is alleged to be a Libyan intelligence officer, he himself denies." It condenses down to "he is a former Libyan intelligence officer, although he continues to deny this", but it is not really surprising, nor particularly worth mentioning, that a convicted criminal denies something about his crime. That is a key misunderstanding here: he is not "accused"; he was convicted. The details that were accepted by the court when he was convicted are treated as facts, not allegations. Each place you read "the court accepted" or "the court agreed", you should read it as being an accepted fact. If you want to get other opinions, you should use some form of dispute resolution, not forum shop by asking for the edit over and over again. At this point, someone servicing the request should see my explanation and decline it due to lack of consensus. Celestra (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Celestra (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Im in agreement with your confusion as to how the Intelligence claim can be called a "fact". I always thought a fact needed some proof rather than just the evidence of a description from an outside group.
Furthermore its surprising to discover that the only evidence for the layman that he was an intelligence agent seems to start with the investigation and no source outside the FBI (or more particularly from records in Libya) are able to be provided). In layman's terms, this would make it more of an opinion than a "fact"!
92.235.178.44 (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Its just really worrying to realise that the only evidence that can be cited are its being mentionned by non Libyan sources. I was previously more confident that there had to be some public sources other than the description on websites and news media quoting the FBI assertion and the findings of three judges in a juryless trial. It seems I was naieve in such a confidence now.92.235.178.44 (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
its not the country Celestra, its the evidence gathered from the country. Thats what I was getting at, as that would include for instance, records of his work etc. How do we know that the FBI were right in their claim? Im surprised to discover that their stating it is the only source that wikipedia can trace all its cources back to. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The academic who succeded in persuading Colonel Gaddaffi to allow the trial wasnt convinced of the factualness of that conclusion and he can offer evidence to the general public as to why not. My point on the talk page is that, even if it is going to be asserted to be a "fact" due to the "anarchy scenario" you outline above, some cross examination of the veracity of the assertion should be there for all to read and decide for themselves. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem remains that the bold statement and reference to a magazine using a juryless trial's decision based on assertions by a hostile prosecutor without any earlier evidence as to his actually working in Libyan intelligence needs improving. It misleads the reader into a false sense of certainty as to its actualness, when nobody can or at least most readers cant know for certain whether or not it is a fact. Im not saying what the solution is, but it needs improving to be more reflective of the reality as to his biographical details prior to the FBI involvement. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure whether you answered the previous comment. It is not easy to see what belongs to what if you write question and reply entirely different places. Anyway, I see that a conflict was started, where the wild CyberFox and the reluctant you are making changes back and forth. Why not calmly quote NYTimes and BBC, add "(according to FBI)" and be happy?
Just for fun I did some Original Research. A reliable source, Wikipedia :-) Abdul_Majid_Giaka reports "His testimony was used to determine that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, a LAA employee working in Luqa airport, was an officer of Libyan intellegence." - bad that the author cannot spell, but apart from that, there are also other sources that state the same thing. A messy source is http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cia-agent-gives-lockerbie-evidence-698514.html See also http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/08/22/world/main226769.shtml See also http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ab/abdul_majid_giaka.htm So, if we do not quote NYTimes / BBC then we can quote less reliable sources perhaps closer to the truth and say that "(according to the CIA double agent Abdul_Majid_Giaka)".
In all cases it is completely unreasonable to just regard this as an established fact. Barbara81 (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You ask "I'm not sure you understand our purpose here". Yes, I do. Very precisely. "We are not a source of original thought". Precisely. We only state what is found in reputable sources, and give references to such reputable sources.
Now doing so becomes more and more difficult in time, because Wikipedia is a good source of information, and many people quote Wikipedia. This means that in cases of doubt one must be very careful, so as to avoid circular dependencies.
There is a claim, doubted by some, denied by at least one, that Wikipedia makes. But "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". Today it is not. Something is claimed as a fact. It may be true, it may be false, it certainly is not verifiable. In the lead this claim is made unsourced, further down two references [1] and [2] are given, that add "according to FBI" and "according to the prosecution". So these two sources do not claim it to be a fact. It is very easy to find reputable sources that similarly add "according to FBI". That would be a completely acceptable way of proceding. You say that this is a minority view. But it is the view of the reputable news sources that we quote. All good news sources state this with a qualifier "according to ...". So, according to the Wikipedia rules, we should slightly modify the text in some way, to make clear that not everybody believes this to be a fact. Some members of Parliament in Scotland, some judges, some lawyers have expressed other opinions.
Then how should this slight doubt be represented? You say "Your original request would have watered down the view presented in the majority of the reliable sources". Somehow I feel that my original request would make Wikipedia agree with the majority of the reliable sources. (And with other Wikipedia articles.) But I can see what you mean, in case you are talking about the leader. Further down the same statement occurs, where it probably would be more appropriate to insert a remark. Myself, I would prefer to see inserted "(according to the FBI)" sourced with the NYTimes and BBC refs I gave earlier. But in fact we have the judges verdict on file, and although NYTimes and BBC are reputable sources suitable to quote, in fact the judges clearly indicate the source of their belief, see verdict, mainly last sentence of [43], where the judges say "we are unable to accept Abdul Majid as a credible and reliable witness on any matter except his description of the organisation of the JSO and the personnel involved there". This is why a reference to Abdul Majid Giaka also is a well-sourced possibility. It is what the judges say themselves.