Jump to content

Talk:Pat Finucane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Advertising?

[edit]

Is it really appropriate to advertise a firm of [redacted per WP:BLP] solicitors in the body of the article, and link to their website? Irvine22 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended your highly inappropriate comment. Do not violate WP:BLP again. 2 lines of K303 15:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't amend the comments of other editors. Do you have an opinion on whether Wikipedia should advertise a particular firm of solicitors? Irvine22 (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right BigDunc. I'll ignore him. Irvine22 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terms of that sort are highly inappropriate and a violation of WP:BLP. It is appropriate to redact comments in such cases. Now, cease and desist. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's inappropriate, why are you using it? (Still, I suppose it makes it pretty clear exactly what you redacted above. So - suits me.) Irvine22 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make it more and more clear that your intention here is disruption. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intention here is to query whether Wikipedia should be advertising a particular and non-notable firm of solicitors. Irvine22 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are quite right, BigDunc. We shouldn't allow their trolly wiles to divert the discussion about whether the article should be advertising a firm of solicitors. Irvine22 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no need for Irvine to make the comment, but it's not that big a deal. So could everyone stop making it one? This is embarrassing. The website seems to be crashing my crappy work browser. Is there anything in it that adds to the subject, that isn't already covered (or could be covered) in the article? That's the gist of WP:EL, isn't it? Stu ’Bout ye! 17:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing that adds to the subject, as far as I can see. The website itself is pretty amateurish. Irvine22 (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone want to point out what the link adds to the article? Stu ’Bout ye! 09:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's unreasonable to include a link to the firm he founded, especially as the article on the firm has been redirected (note, not deleted) to this article. 2 lines of K303 14:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The firm's webpage seems to be about selling their services, which is contrary to WP:ELYES. Irvine22 (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I have redirected the link to the section that actually archives material relating Finucane himself and his death. [1] I hope this is a reasonable compromise, as it is clearly relevant to this article, while it gets around the potential advertising/solicitation on the main page. While I was at it, I removed two other links that clearly do not merit inclusion per WP:EL. Rockpocket 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine by me. The Pat Finucance Centre is an acceptable link. The firm of [redacted per WP:BLP] solicitors is not. Irvine22 (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

[edit]

Ive been advised that adding a comment that Pat Finucane was acting on behalf of 23 men accused of involvement in the murder of two soldiers the summer prior to his death. I referenced the article I cannot see how stating this is wrong ? comments please Builderbob38 (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not belong in the introduction to the article. Pat representing Pat McGeown during that case is already covered in the main body of the article. O Fenian (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested verification that Patrick Finucane was involved in "human rights" cases as opposed to defending members of the IRA the source currently listed is not working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Builderbob38 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Police investigation

[edit]

The article needs to contain information regarding the RUC investigation into his murder. Such as which RUC regional command handled it, who headed the CID team, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have since added the relevant info with source.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Killed'

[edit]

The consensus on the Lord Mountbatten article was that he was 'assassinated', not 'murdered' or indeed 'killed'. In the interests of balance the word should be altered here too as Finucanes death was part of the same war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.172.179 (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is the murder of a lawyer called an assassination?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is assassination something that only happens in war, for that matter? And since when was trying to overthrow democracy by randomly murdering people "war" anyway? 81.156.69.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have feeling the wording used about those killed/murdered/assassinated in the Troubles have been debated a lot in other articles about this conflict. We should follow the consensus, even though I don't think the exact wording matters all that much.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"elements of the British state apparatus"

[edit]

This needs clarifying, as the murder (or assassination) was not ordered by the government. You might as well say "a group of civil servants acting on their own behalf". The "British state apparatus" employs or supports hundreds of thousands of people in Northern Ireland.86.42.208.183 (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the wording is a bit fuzzy, so I changed it to "elements of the British security forces", which seems to be more in line with the findings of the public investigations. How high up the ranks this collusion went seems to be unknown so I think the "elements" part is fitting.--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be updated in the light of the official report. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/246867/0802.pdf See also previous source calling for official enquiry http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/police/docs/lchr130202.pdf which contains relevant Hansard references. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/police/docs/lchr130202.pdf Given the official report and importance of Hogg's comments it seems appropriate to confirm Hogg comments and their date - Hansard Isthisuseful (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pat Finucane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

The article's principle claims, made in the lead, are sourced, via notes 3 and 4, to the website of Madden & Finucane, Solicitors, with a 404 Error indicating that the supposed pages do not in fact exist at that website. So the article's no good. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Sus scrofa (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a problem. The lead claims that the UDA killers acted in collusion with MI5, and sources this to the Cory report, which says no such thing. Cory says that only a public inquiry, with evidence tested on cross, could establish collusion as a fact (and the inquiry was never held), but that there was evidence of collusion by RUC Special Branch, Army intelligence (which he refers to as the 'FRU') and MI5. Not just MI5. And what Cory means by 'collusion' is failure to warn a certain person, in this case Pat Finucane, that terrorists had a plan to kill him. The duty to warn rested solely with the RUC. Cory blames the Army, and MI5, for not relaying their agents' reports to the RUC. That doesn't mean they didn't; it only means that the papertrail doesn't show that they did. However, MI5's information was quite general, and Finucane obviously knew his life was in danger anyway -- that is why he had a panic button in the house. (Maybe, given warning, he could have shifted his whole family to a new and secret address, but, given that for work reasons he had to appear in court and then go home from that public location, the loyalists would probably have tracked him down again.) And Cory notes that on a previous occasion in 1981, MI5 did tell RUC SB about a loyalist plan to kill Finucane and the RUC chose not to warn him. So telling the RUC did not seem to do much good. The Army had better information, from their agent Brian Nelson, an intelligence officer for the UDA, who told his handler that he'd been asked to provide a press photo of Finucane (presumably so that the gunmen would recognise him), which again was apparently not passed on to the RUC, but again it's not clear that passing it on would have done any good. Cory found that the RUC had their own agent in place, UDA arms quartermaster William Stobie (later murdered in 2001), who issued the handguns for the killers' immediate use and reported this to his RUC handler. Again the RUC chose not to do anything about it. Stobie later said he went to bed that night convinced he had blood on his hands because the RUC would intercept the killers and probably shoot them (as they should have), but of course that didn't happen. Not sure why this comes down to 'collusion by MI5', when it was clearly the RUC putting a stop on the most critical information -- that is, the issue of weapons meaning that the attack was imminent. Of the three agencies involved -- MI5, the Army and the RUC -- MI5 would appear to be the least culpable. The only agency that could have intervened on the night, and the only one with immediate foreknowledge of the attack, was the RUC. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017: Appropriate sources?

[edit]

A lot of citations on this article are linked to a website run by a law firm Pat Finucane helped establish. I am still a relatively new editor, but would these citations not constitute questionable sources? I don't want to modify the article if the sources are considered valid. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 21:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which citations are you thinking of in particular? Current number 4 is merely a rehosting of the Cory Collusion Inquiry Report, so the source there is not the law firm.--Sus scrofa (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pat Finucane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pat Finucane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finucane's nationality

[edit]

In this edit, GM1916 altered the article to assert that Finucane was Irish, not British. However, neither claim is supported by the footnote for that sentence, which makes no statements at all about Finucane's nationality.

Is anyone aware of one or more WP:RS that state Finucane's nationality or nationalities? If not, we should remove as not WP:VERIFIABLE any assertions of Finucane's nationality. We can still describe him as a Belfast-based solicitor, which is a description for which there are multiple WP:RS (e.g. [2] [3]). Zazpot (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit before GM1916's is the critical one, where an IP changed Irish to British with a misleading edit summary. FDW777 (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Weasel words"

[edit]

@Sus scrofa: It's no good asking users to "read the report" when the proffered citation does not support the content. In this case, the citation does not support confirmed fact, but merely allegation or opinion. If you want to present the collusion as an established fact, you must insert a specific citation in support. Bjenks (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without even reading the Cory Collusion Inquiry Report, it doesn't make much sense to add "alleged" when the sentence immediately after is referenced and says In 2011 British Prime Minister David Cameron met with Pat Finucane's family and admitted the collusion. And a quick search for "David Cameron" finucane family 2011 brings up this, for example. FDW777 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)-[reply]
OK, so why not cite that article instead of the vague Cory opinion? Bjenks (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collusion

[edit]

For the benefit of IP editors who are in denial about simple facts, and think collusion is only alleged.

  • The Guardian Lewis, speaking to the Commons after briefing the family, said he recognised an appalling crime had been committed with state collusion. “It is plain that the levels of collusion in the Finucane case, made clear by previous investigations, are totally unacceptable.”
  • BBC Several examinations of the case found state forces colluded in his murder

And so on. There is no doubt at all collusion occurred, except among those who seek to whitewash history. FDW777 (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing accuracy

[edit]

I am not sure the summation related to the source of this edit [4] is accurate. Can someone more familiar with this article look into this. Also, The Daily Telegaph source was removed and replaced by the source seen in this diff. Actually, it looks like the text is conflated somehow, and cherry picked from the source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_Finucane&oldid=1207230725"