Talk:Pat Finucane

message: 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)
replies: text: I have amended your highly inappropriate comment. Do not violate WP:BLP again. 2 lines of K303 15:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: You're right BigDunc. I'll ignore him. Irvine22 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You make it more and more clear that your intention here is disruption. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Does anyone want to point out what the link adds to the article? Stu ’Bout ye! 09:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Alright. I have redirected the link to the section that actually archives material relating Finucane himself and his death.  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Advertising? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: I have since added the relevant info with source.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Police investigation

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  'Killed' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "elements of the British state apparatus"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050825233016/http://web.amnesty.org:80/pages/gbr-030605-action-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/pages/gbr-030605-action-eng
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. --Sus scrofa (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  November 2017: Appropriate sources? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121214203228/http://www.patfinucanereview.org/report/volume01/executive-summary-and-principal-conclusions/ to http://www.patfinucanereview.org/report/volume01/executive-summary-and-principal-conclusions/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924123657/http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=512544 to http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=512544
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100410232413/http://www.madden-finucane.com/english/pat_finucane_case.aspx to http://www.madden-finucane.com/english/pat_finucane_case.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121213184550/http://www.patfinucanereview.org/report/index.html to http://www.patfinucanereview.org/report/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.  ). Zazpot (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Finucane's nationality 

message: @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)
replies: text: 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 . And a quick search for  brings up this, for example. FDW777 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so why not cite that article instead of the vague Cory opinion? Bjenks (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Weasel words" 

message: For the benefit of IP editors who are in denial about simple facts, and think collusion is only alleged.
*The Guardian 
*BBC 
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)
thread_title:  Collusion 

message: I am not sure the summation related to the source of this edit  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)
thread_title: Editing accuracy