Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:38, 14 June 2005

Revision as of 09:55, 14 June 2005

Line 1:

Reverted again

== Detroit? ==

The first sentence reads: "Pan Am Flight 103 was Pan Am's regular Frankfurt-London-New York-Detroit flight." However, two paragraphs later, you have, "... was operating the final London-New York leg of the route." Wouldn't NY-Detroit be the final leg? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 15:42, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

:Yes, Pan Am Flight 103's final destination was Detroit. The Boeing 747 that took off from London was bound for New York, where it was to have connected to a Boeing 727 flying from New York to Detroit (See main story in ''[[The Washington Post]]'' [http://www.wpni.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/panam103/stories/crash122288.htm] for details). --[[User:SNIyer12|SNIyer12]]

==Price/Rifkind==

To the editor who added this: "On the night of the bombing, Scottish Secretary [[Malcolm Rifkind]] and the U.S. ambassador in Britain, [[Charles H. Price II]], toured the wreckage in Lockerbie. Rifkind gave the first indication that the plane exploded. He told reporters on the scene after touring the wreckage: "The aircraft clearly experienced some form of explosion, which has resulted in many parts of the aircraft falling in many different locations--that we know. But what might have caused that to happen, I'm sorry, I could not even speculate." Price also agreed with Rifkind that the plane had exploded."

How does mentioning what politicians thought on the night add to the article? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 05:57, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

==Rewrite==

I'm currently doing a rewrite of this article to expand it and to improve the writing, the narrative flow, and the use of references and photos. I'm doing this on a user subpage, then inserting the improvements as sections are completed, so any changes made while this is going on may be overwritten until the first complete draft is on the page. I'll make a note here or in the edit summary when that is. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 04:22, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

==U.S. military personnel==

SNIyer1, can you supply a reference please for your recent edit: "There were U.S. military personnel on board, many of them flying home from their bases in Germany for Christmas," showing that the U.S. military personnel you refer to are different from the ones I name in the subsequent paragraph? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 20:55, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

== 27 Years ==

I don't know if this is the right place to put this but could somebody tell me why the Lockerbie Bomber only got 27 years. Shouldn't the many murders resulted in a huge sentance?

== Good article ==

Nice work, this article is in pretty good shape. Definitely "featured article" material. [[User:Mirror Vax|Mirror Vax]] 02:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

:Thank you for the positive feedback, MV. It's much appreciated. There's still some work to be done on the court case and the appeal, but it's starting to shape up. Cheers, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 02:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

==Lockerbie residents paragraph==

SN, thinking about the paragraph and the source you provided, I'd suggest something like this:

<blockquote>Despite being advised not to travel to Lockerbie, many of the passengers' relatives, most of them from the U.S., arrived there within days to identify their loved ones. Volunteers from Lockerbie set up and manned canteens, which stayed open 24 hours a day, where relatives, soldiers, police officers, and social workers could find free sandwiches, hot meals, coffee, and someone to talk to. The women of the town volunteered to wash, dry, and iron every piece of clothing that was found, so that as many items as possible could be returned to the relatives. The BBC's Scottish correspondent, Andrew Cassel, reported on the tenth anniversary that the townspeople had "opened their homes and hearts" to the relatives, bearing their own losses "stoically and with enormous dignity," and that the bonds forged that day continue to this. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/12/98/lockerbie/236466.stm]</blockquote>

When I've linked to an article in the text like this, I then go to the References section and add a full citation, which in this case would be:

*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/12/98/lockerbie/236466.stm "Lockerbie, 10 years on: Reporter's reflections"] by Andrew Cassel, ''BBC News'', December 21, 1998

Let me know what you think of this. By doing it this way, we're giving a bit more factual information, and we're also attributing the positive opinion of the residents to the BBC, rather than saying it ourselves. If you agree with it, feel free to add it, or change it a little, as you see fit. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 07:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

:I agree -- [[User:SNIyer12|SNIyer12]]

==Gadaffi's daughter==

Hi ProhibitOnions, regarding your edit that the little girl who died in the 1986 raids may not have been adopted by Gadaffi: he said she was, and this was published as fact and not disputed, so we run with it. Otherwise we'd have to insert "as claimed" after every sentence in this article, as we haven't personally verified any of it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 19:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Umm, no, he's a public figure and a dictator known for his use of propaganda, so some skepticism is in order. Fact is, despite Gadaffi's being in the public eye as leader of Libya for (then) 16 years, the girl was never mentioned anywhere until after the attack. This may have been "published as fact" but in a controlled society this proves nothing. (As I recall, the initial Libyan statements at the time said his baby daughter had been killed; this was easy enough to fact-check, and later statements added the "adopted.")

The likelihood that this may have been propaganda warrants a qualification, such as "claimed to have been adopted," even if the AP printed it. --[[User:ProhibitOnions|ProhibitOnions]] 10:22, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

:Sorry, PO, I just saw your reply. We have to go with what the credible, published sources say, and I haven't read anything indicating that she wasn't really adopted by him. I take your point about a controlled society, but even so: it would seem churlish to add "as claimed" to this relationship and not to any other. I don't think there's any doubt that a little girl died, and I'm not sure it particularly matters what her relationship with Gadaffi was. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 15:03, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

==SI units==

This article desperately needs SI units. I am not thrilled that the good conversion work of one editor gets reverted by another, without as much as a edit summary and even marking it as a minor edit (which it clearly wasn't). For what it's worth, that revert even reintroduced a typo that had been fixed with the unit conversion. A dozen edits later, the typo's still there. [[User:Rl|Rl]] 07:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Why not say what the typo is, RI, or fix it? As for metric conversions, Bobblewik reverted to a previous version without so much as an edit summary, so I hope you'll leave a note about that for him, too, as he's been asked many times not to do it.

::I can't say why, given that a) ''you'' have already scolded Bobblewik and b) despite your claims, he ''did'' write an edit summary which clearly said what he did (clearly enough for you and me, anyway). Bobblewik has also been commended by various people for his work on SI units, most complaints are about specific instances or particular units, ''not'' his SI unit crusade in general, so it is entirely appropriate for him to be bold and improve articles accordingly. [[User:Rl|Rl]] 12:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::He has also been criticized, and recently lost an adminship vote because of it. It is not appropriate to be bold when the editors on the page are asking him to stop, or at least discuss it. He does neither. Anyway, this is not about him, but about the edits, so let's stick to that issue. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

:Why do you feel it desperately needs SI units? The Manual of Style says that the usage of the country the article is about should prevail. This article is somewhat ambiguous because it was an attack on the United States, which took place in Scottish airspace, and which involved the deaths of people from 21 countries. The Manual of Style states that, where such an ambiguity exists, the article should retain the style used by the first major contributor. In this case, that is not metric units. In addition, because there are so many measurements in this article, the flow of the writing is hampered by the constant parentheses. The quality of writing must take priority over metric conversions, because these articles are being written in order to be read. The writing can't be allowed to suffer to satisfy single-issue editors wanting to make political points about measurements.

:Interestingly, for all the many times Bobblewik has tried to introduced metric conversions to this article, he has never left a single post explaining his position on this talk page or on the talk pages of any of the editors. Thank you for making the effort. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 09:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

::Very, very few editors leave a note on the talk page of every article they improve. You seem to believe that SI units are controversial enough that editors are required to justify their edits. That, however, is your problem, not ours. [[User:Rl|Rl]] 12:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Very, very few editors keep on inserting material they've been asked not to insert over months, without making A SINGLE EDIT to the talk page of the article in question. These conversions ''are'' your problem as you're the one who wants to add them. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

::You were the one who reverted the fixing of the typo already, [[User:SlimVirgin]]. It is quite appropriate to ask you to pay attention to what it is that you are reverting. I know damn well you did not do so when it came to reverting my edits, so it is unlikely that you did so in reverting Bobblewik's edits either. It is also quite appropriate to ask you to fix it now.

::Much of the rest of your comments I've already dealt with below.

::Note specifically that you already have three editors saying that SI conversions are appropriate in this article. In some cases, the SI measurements were likely the original measurements; in those cases, it is the English measurements which could be omitted, if we only want to go with one measurment.

:::Please explain what you mean by this. The original measurements were not in SI. For example, the cruising altitude of 31,000 feet: the aircraft's squawk reported it at 310. This is 31,000 feet. Not 9,000 meters. Same goes for all the other measurements. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

::In other cases, the original measurement may well have been a nonmetric measurement different from the one used in this article. In those cases, too, the original measurements should be restored, and metric conversions added. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 10:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::You keep saying metric units should be added. But why? You never say why, and you don't say which policy or guideline you're following. Please do, then we'll have something more concrete to discuss. As for the typo you keep referring to, please tell me what it is, or fix it. Don't play games. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 10:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

===Replies to Gene===

[[User:SlimVirgin]], will you please stop jacking around with my editing of this article. Stop acting like this is your personal ___domain, some article which you "own" for some reason or another.

Put back in all the wikification of dates which I did.

:You are wikifying dates that have already been wikified? Why do you want dates to be wikified several times? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

::Well, duhhhh!!!!! It's because that's how we make preferences work. You know, that little tab between "my talk" and "my watchlist" when you are logged in as a user. I don't want to see November 13, 1991. I want to see 13 November 1991, the way I have my preferences set. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 11:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::If you continue being so rude, I'll stop answering your posts. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

:::This is explained quite clearly at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates]]. Go read it. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 11:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::I have read it. Go and read the main MoS page. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

:::::Here's what it says at dates and numbers: "Both day-month and year must be linked for the preference to work correctly. Other date forms such as year only (e.g. 1981) should be treated like any other words and linked only if there is some particular relevance." So your wikifying December 21 in the absence of the year makes no difference to your preferences. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 14:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

::::::Good grief, SlimVirgin. Just go set your preferences to "15 January 2001" and then come back here and see for yourself what that [[December 21]] without a year looks like. Then if it bothers you that the explanation in the MoS didn't quite hit the nail on the head, go fix it there. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 15:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please put back the unit symbol corrections I made. And please reinstate my metric conversions, or those previously done by [[User:Bobblewik]] as [[User:RI]] has also said should have already been done, and then there wouldn't have been so much for me to do in the first place.

:Read what I wrote to RI above. Where there is ambiguity about the national usage, the style used by the first major contributor applies. Read the Manual of Style. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

::Read what I said below. This is not a "national usage" issue. There is no "first user" policy involved here. You are claiming inapplicable rules. Just go read [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]]. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 11:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::No, Gene, this is an instance where the national usage can't be determined and the first major contributor guideline therefore applies. Also bear in mind that MoS isn't policy. It's a guideline. There is ''nothing mandatory'' about metric conversions. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

::::That's where you are totally, completely, absolutely '''wrong'''. This is not a '''flavor of English''' issue, except in a very peripheral way. Kilograms, for example, are '''very much a part of American English''', and they are '''very much a part of British English''', and they are very much a part of any other flavor of English.

::::Similarly, "km" is '''every bit as much a part of American English as it is British English or any other flavor of English'''. The only '''national usage''' and therefore the only '''first user''' issue involved here is thus the question of how this unit is spelled when it is spelled out: Is it '''kilometers''' or is it '''kilometres'''? Similarly, is it litres or is it liters, if we use those units? Those is absolutely the only questions for which either ''national usage'' or ''first user'' have any relevance with respect to the current discussion. Everything else, as far as the Manual of Style goes, falls under the purview of [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]]. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 01:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::Gene, I don't know what you're talking about. As other editors have made clear on this page, miles are as much a part of American and British English too, and that's what we're using. We're going to follow the style of the Federal Aviation Administration, as this is an article about a flight that followed their regulations, so we say 31,000 feet because that's what the aircraft's responder said, that's what air traffic control said etc. Whatever measurements they used with reference to this flight, that is what we'll be using throughout the article, which is exactly in accordance with the MoS. I'm having to type everything at least twice here for your benefit, but I won't keep on doing that, so please read what people have written. Do not delete referenced facts from the article. The link is, as I recall, to a Washington Post article, and the 100 tons is taken from there. Look up how the word 'ton' is used in the States if you like at [[Ton]]. But don't replace it with some. You're coming close to trolling now and [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point|disrupting Wikipedia to make a point]]. Please stop it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 02:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Copying the above comment below, so other editors can see it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>}

:::::P.S. As far as "kg" go, even the British have largely abandoned the [[kilogramme]] spelling; however, if someone chose to use that archaic spelling in an article written in British English, I couldn't say it was flat-out wrong, and I would not change it to [[kilogram]]. Others might have other ideas about that, however. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 01:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::::Note further that when it comes to the question of [[British English]] or [[American English]] or [[Canadian English]] or whatever, the question then becomes a determination of who the '''first user''' actually was. Who was the first person to use any distinctive flavor of English, outside of quoted material? Could you please point that out to me and everyone else, by pointing to the date and the specific edit which you would claim to be the earliest such use? Was it by me? Or perhaps it was [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] sneaking in some British spellings? It wasn't likely by [[User:Bobblewik|Bobblewik]], I'm fairly sure of that. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 02:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::You are confusing the British English/Canadian English/American usage policy with something entirely different, the measurements policy. This isn't a "national usage" issue. It isn't a first contributor issue, especially when it is just adding conversions without removing the measurements which were originally there. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 11:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::There is no measurements policy that I know of. Please show me where it says that metric conversions are policy. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

On my talk page, [[User:SlimVirgin]] wrote:

<blockquote>Gene, please don't add all these metric units to this page. There are too many measurements and it interferes with the quality of the writing. These conversions are not policy, and this is a predominantly U.S. topic, particularly as the measurements were mostly determined by forensic investigators in the U.S. In any event, the Manual of Style if just a guideline and it clearly states these conversions need not be included. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 08:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)</blockquote>

Note that most of my additions and corrections had to do with other things than the adding of SI conversions, which also was an important part of my editing.

This is by no stretch of the imagination solely an "American" article; and even if it were, some of the measurements given here would still have been originally done in metric units, and it is actually fairly likely that some did come from U.S. sources and were originally in metric.

:Read what I wrote above, please, so I don't have to keep repeating it. As for the measurements "would still been originally done in metric units," what do you mean? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is an act of international terrorism, which took place over the airspace of the [[United Kingdom]], with the pieces fallig to the ground in the U.K., blamed on [[Libya]] and with defendants from there (and also from [[Lebanon]], wasn't it?), with the trial taking place in the [[Netherlands]].

::No defendants from Lebanon. You might want to try reading the article you're so keen to intefere with. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

:Read what I wrote above! Where there is ambiguity about which national usage should apply, the first major contributor rule holds. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

There are also not really a whole lot of measurements in this article. Especially if you don't have to tell us 97 times that it was at 31,000 feet. There are a great many Wikipedia articles which are much more measurement intensive, and which include measurements in dual units.

:There are a LOT of measurements in this article, with several sentences containing several measurements, which is my main objection: that it disturbs the flow of the writing. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Conversions to SI are '''always''' in order; we don't really need any special reason to add them.

:Who says? This is a wiki. You don't make up the rules as you go along. The only applicable thing here is the MoS, which is only a guideline, but it does say the first major contributor rule applies. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, in this case, you've already had three of us editors telling you implicitly or explicitly that they should be added to this article. The Wikipedia articles which only include measurements in one system of units are almost always those which use only SI units.

:Show me some evidence of that, please. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, even when you or some other editor whose work you did not change as you did mine and Bobblewik's included a couple of metric measurements, you botched that up royally, too:

*You didn't identify the tons as metric tons in at least one case.

*You used a totally unacceptable symbol "mms" for millimeters in another case. Symbols for units of measure should remain unchanged between singular and plural, never adding things like a language-specific "s" in the plural.

Furthermore, there are many problems with the English units used, totally apart from the fact that after SlimVirgin's playing like he/she owns this article and reverts additions of SI conversions.

*The symbol for degrees Fahrenheit is °F, not F.

*Several of the "miles" should be identified as either nautical miles or as statute miles, since this is a context in which nautical miles are often but not always used. Furthermore, I am reasonably certain that both types of miles are in fact actually used in this article. Note, of course, that this is one specific case in which an inclusion of SI conversions does at least partially accomplish this identification, so that if the numbers of kilometers are wrong because the miles have been improperly identified, then some other editor can come in and properly identify those miles.

*Even though the Fred Flintstone units, unlike the metric units, are no longer supported and updated, the proper rules for the use of their symbols mirror the explicit rules for their use in SI. Just like the mm for millimeters, the oz for ounces and the in for inches and the lb for pounds should remain unchanged in the plural.

:The article is undergoing some major edits at the moment. All these copy-editing details will be sorted out. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

*Another of the rules for units is that in running text like this, it is improper to mix superscripts with spelled out units. Use the symbols if you are going to use superscripts, or spell out "square" or "cubic" or whatever if you are going to use the spelled out words.

*There is supposed to be a space between numbers and units of measure, according to Wikipedia MoS and all the modern rules by the professional metrologists (some style guides, perhaps including that of [[The Times]], a U.K. newspaper, still state the rule of closing them up, but that format never was used in the United States&mdash;significant in light of your viewing this as an "American" article&mdash;and it is contrary to the rules of the [[National Physical Laboratory]], the U.K. national standards laboratory. The one instance of that which I corrected was also, of course, inconsistent with all the other measurements in this particular article.

I think there are still other, different changes I made which I have not commented on here, so if there is anything else in particular you want to bring up, point it out. I just remembered one of them&mdash;why did you revert my change of the spelling of the German word ''fuer'' to ''für''?

:I reverted your metric conversions. Anything else that got reverted along with them wasn't the target of the conversion. In any event, what difference is there between fuer and für such that you would want to change it?

I'm going ask you nicely to go back and reinstate every one of the edits which I made. Then if you want to quibble about any specific change, make an edit to that change and discuss the reasons either here or in a simple case in your edit summary, and we can hash it out. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 09:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Gene, why don't we do it the other way round? If ''you'' want to make a specific change, why don't ''you'' discuss the reasons here first? I have laid out my arguments and I'm basing my position on the MoS.

:'''Before we go any further, please say which policy document or guideline you are basing your position on.'''

:Three final points:

:Don't use headers to make personal attacks. Bear in mind that I'm trying to improve this article in several substantive ways, and it's unhelpful and time-consuming to have single-issue editors bearing down on me, who otherwise make no substantive contribution to the article. And finally, I'd appreciate it if you would change your tone and be civil. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 10:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

==MoS==

From the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|MoS]]: ''For units of measure use SI units, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so''. I'm sure there are other places that say something else, but I consider that a good enough base to ask that the SI units be kept if added to an article. For this particular article, there may be some reason for keeping imperial units, but having imperial units ''only'' makes the article considerably less useful for the better part of the world. [[User:Rl|Rl]] 12:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:(1) This is not policy. (2) There are compelling pragmatic reasons not to do so. It seriously disturbs the flow of the writing. (3) The original measurements were not in SI. (4) The first major contributor rule applies. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

::RI, which parts of the world don't understand feet and miles? Even in Europe, where metric is used, people know what feet and miles are. In the UK, most people still use them. In the context of this article, the pilots use them. The air traffic controllers use them. I think you're putting ideology before facts here. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 13:23, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

:::Which parts of the world don't understand km and m? Even in the US, people know what metre and kilometre are. And even though they are not used to them, they also benefit from the fact that they are easy to convert, unlike the imperial units which don't even pretend to be a system. I usually don't feel strongly enough to add SI units myself (although I do so occasionally), and I am used to read miles and feet, but quite frankly you lost me with ounces. [[User:Rl|Rl]] 13:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::: You don't know that a pound is 453g? And 16 oz is one pound? Maybe you should wikify ounce to [[avoirdupois]] then? That would resolve the problem for those like you who do not know the imperial system, without destroying the flow of the writing. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 03:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::It is the "flow of the reading" that we are trying to address by adding conversions. For everyone, not just the small minority of people in the world who normally use English units. When well done, using dual measurements does little to interrupt that flow; most people just ingnore one or the other of the two measurements given in each case. Even those of us who know quite well that we no longer have any independent standards for our avoirdupois pounds, and that they have been defined as exact fractions of a kilogram for 112 years in the United States, and that they have been defined as exactly 0.45359237 kg, worldwide, for over 45 years, should not have to do our own conversions to be able to understand this article. Especially when many of the figures presented in ounces were likely originally measured in grams in the first place, whether these numbers come from Czech sources or from the FBI laboratories. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 11:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Fuer==

As a matter of interest, what do you feel is wrong with the ''Bundesamt fuer Verfassungsschutz''? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 10:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

==POV pushing==

You're acting like bullies, trying to impose a British/European perspective on this article, which is not appropriate, and which I will resist. There were people from 21 countries on board; it was an American flight; the target was American; it exploded over Scottish airspace; the investigation was largely American; the prosecution case was largely American; most of the victims were American; the trial was held in Holland; the alleged bombers, one of whom may be a victim of a miscarriage of justice, were Libyan; the original measurements given by the police were not in SI. It is therefore not appropriate to force this article into any nationalist pigeonhole. The first major contributor rule applies. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

:Alright, that does it. I don't think I act like a bully, but frankly I find the idea of counting nationalities of people to enforce one flavor of units in an article sad. I'm taking this page off my watch list. Enjoy. [[User:Rl|Rl]] 13:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Thank you. I, in turn, find it sad that a very small number of editors attempt to force metric conversions (or any other ideological issue) into articles regardless of the subject matter, regardless of the effect it has on the writing, and regardless of the opinions of the people who are actually writing the material. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 13:50, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

==MoS==

From [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Style for numbers, weights, and measures]]:

"The issue of whether all units should be metric (SI), Imperial, or American units is being debated at [[Wikipedia:Measurements Debate]].

"In scientific contexts, such as physics and chemistry, use SI units. Unless there is an important historical or other reason to use one style over another, editors may choose whether to use Imperial or metric units. It may be helpful to readers to offer the Imperial and metric equivalents, but this should not be done if it reduces the flow of a sentence or otherwise interferes with the quality of the writing." This is not a scientific context. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 12:54, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

:No, it isn't. I, myself, can only think in metric, so it's really annoying for me to read otherwise, but hey, tough break for me in those instances. We can't add metric conversions for every piece of measurement; there are too many and it's a recepy for stylistic convolution. [[User:El C|El_C]] 13:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I'm a little surprised that anyone able to read and write in English can't understand feet, ounces, etc. I'd also venture to suggest that most British people still have some difficulty with most metric units, and their implementation in official contexts is partial at best. The issue here, though, is twofold: the Manual of Style, and the readability of the article. Both point to not including metric translations throughout the article.

::My preference, though (and I seem to remember that there was consensus on this, but I can't remember where) is to use full terms rather than abbreviations ("ounces" rather than "oz", etc.). It avoids ambiguities and makes the writing clearer. I also prefer to see numbers under 100 written out as words; that's not insisted upon by the MoS (which only demands that numbers under ten be so treated; other style guides prefer 100 as the cut-off), but again, it helps to make articles look more like proper writing and less like newspaper stories. Any thoughts?

::My only other comment is that at least one editor here needs to calm down a little, and try to interact more politely with others. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 14:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Doesn't the fact that you yourself found it necessary to wikify [[November 13]], [[1991]]&mdash;something which I had already done not just once but twice before&mdash;tell you anything about why I have good reason to be upset about these inappropriate reversions? [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 02:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Heh, I didn't mean I fail to ''understand'' it, only that I can't (intuitively) ''think'' outside the metric. :) [[User:El C|El_C]] 22:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the input. I agree about ounces rather than ozs, and I'll look at changing those when I do the next copy edit. I'll have a look at the numbers under 100 too. It's the stylistic convolution I'm trying to avoid, where the reader's eye gets caught by the measurements in brackets, and loses the flow and meaning of the sentence. Even as the author, I had to read some of the sentences more than once to take them in properly once all the conversions had been added. Only some sentences contain lots of measurements, but the problem is you can't convert some without converting them all. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 14:23, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

::::At last, something in which I can claim to have some measure of authority without El C's sneering at me. Numbers under ten. Under a hundred is too much. Abbreviated terms are fine for measurements -- it's almost odder to write them out in full and my instinct would be to correct them to abbreviations. If you do change them, take care to change them all. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 05:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)