Talk:Pat Finucane/Archive 1

Stevens Report
How come there is no mention of the Stevens Report, which deals in detail with the Finucane murder?

It is available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/northern_ireland/03/stephens_inquiry/html/default.stm

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens_Report


 * The findings of the Stevens Report regarding the murder of Pat Finucane should definetly be incorporated into this article. --Sus scrofa 05:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

collusion v instigation
Sort of splitting hairs here, but is the murder believed to have been perpetrated "at the instigation of" or "in collusion with" the RUC? This article says both. I have only heard the latter from media sources, and the former is a more severe disparagement of the police. On the other hand, why would a bunch of thugs seek to kill a defense lawyer in particular?

Also, the Patrick Finucane entry needs to be merged with this, and one or the other replaced with a redirect. Tafinucane 06:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Suspected vs claimed
My latest revert of User:RightForScotland's edit is because there really are wide suspicion about collusion among human rights groups. That is the reason for the many calls for an independent investigation, there would be no need for that otherwise.--Sus scrofa 08:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about alleged versus suspected versus claimed? News groups use the word alleged when there are no current charges against an individual/s in a situation where a legal case could/is due to be brought. Why alleged - because you can't be sued or bring a court case down using alleged, but you can using suspect (which is a legal term surrounding someone interviewed but not yet charged by the authorities), and claimed (ie - you claim therefore show us the evidence). I note in the disputed/rv'd para that there is presently no link to an external reference that uses any of these words - so at present, wiki is open to legal technical dispute on its own POV. I have placed a fact tag in the para, in the hope that someone will provide a link to a media source (none of these non-media sources please), which says one of the words, which we can then use -ie, we are just noting fact, not creating our own POV. I know some will find this difficult, but please understand the legal position and wiki's noting of fact. Rgds, - Trident13 09:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, "suspicion" also has a non-legal meaning. I think clarification of that in the text might be needed. If, say Amnesty International and the US Congress, did not suspect collusion then why would they call for an independent inquiry? Also, according to the above mentioned Stevens Report, the murder of Finucane was a case of collusion (points 4.6-4.7). --Sus scrofa 15:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"murdered" vs "killed"
A recent edit changed "murdered" to "killed" in the article again. Both the Cory Collusion Inquiry Report and Stevens report call it a murder, as do Amnesty, so I'm not enterily sure what term is correct.--Sus scrofa 16:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I made the edit in line with other articles. --Counter-revolutionary 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ken Barrett was convicted of the murder of Finucane, therefore he was most definitely murdered. One Night In Hackney 303 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why would some contest that Sir Norman Stronge, bart. was not murdered? This is most hypocritcal.  I agree PF was murdered, but for murder to occur doesn't require a conviction!  If someone is murdered they are murdered, whether or not the culprit was apprehended.--Counter-revolutionary 16:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the thorough discussion on the Stronge talk page, and also see the article itself where it states exactly who described it as murder. Should something similar happen here I'd have no objections, but it is a more complex situation than just "murder" vs "killing" on that article. One Night In Hackney 303 16:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was involved in the discussions, as you well know. Do you contest that, if Sir Norman's killers were caught, they would have fulfilled the actus reus of murder? --Counter-revolutionary 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was a while ago and I didn't remember. I assume you mean convicted rather than caught? But let's try and keep on the topic of this article. Do you agree that the Stronge article is handled in a rather unique way, and that just changing this to killing "per Stronge" doesn't handle it in the same way at all? One Night In Hackney 303 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No - I meant if they were caught they would be convicted of murder. Therefore this Sir Norman was murdered.  I agree Finnucan should say murder too, but I'm trying to push through a guideline, this needs discussed.--Counter-revolutionary 16:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If they were caught they would be charged with murder, conviction is a different matter. One Night In Hackney 303 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're wrong. The culprits fulfilled the actus reus, in that they brought about his death, and the mens rea, in that they intended to kill or cause GBH.  No jury in Northern Ireland would disagree with that. --Counter-revolutionary 16:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, what I'm saying is that you're automatically assuming that anyone charged is automatically guilty of the offence, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? One Night In Hackney 303 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Innocent until proven guilty exists for the individual but not for the crime. The crime occurred, someone murdered him, however the culprit would be innocent until proven guilty, yes.  Hence tabloid rhetoric such as "A Murder Hunt is Underway" &c.--Counter-revolutionary 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to provide examples of where tabloids and the police used the term murder, yet the perpetrator(s) were convicted of manslaughter? One Night In Hackney 303 17:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This would not be manslaughter, rest assured. If you know about the law, which perhaps you do, you would know that.--Counter-revolutionary 17:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As before, until a person has been convicted of murder through due process, they are not guilty of murder. One Night In Hackney 303 17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You probably shouldn't make edits in order to establish a new guideline, see Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point--Sus scrofa 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I argued on the Stronge pages that the term murder shouldn't be used as it was a POV term, the same arguement was used on the Army Bus bombing article as well, and the same applied to the Bloody Sunday article, we can't use murdered on some articles and killed on others we should be consistant. I would regard murdered as a POV term that should be avoided, unless it within a quoted ref from a reliable source.--padraig3uk 23:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it can be sourced from countless places, as Ken Barrett was convicted of murdering Finucane, so it's use is not POV in any way. As I said earlier the Stronge article uses "killed", then goes on to use "murder" and explain who used the term. The problem with this article is that practically every source you can find will use the term "murder". One Night In Hackney 303 23:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then the article should use killed as for the others in the lead, then if the term murder is used in quoted text then as long as its properly sourced there should be no problem with it.--padraig3uk 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sean O'Callaghan allegations
Recently, there's been some disagreement as to wether the paragraph containing Sean O'Callaghan's alleagations about meeting Finucane at an IRA meeting should stay in. Of course the word of a professional informant is pretty untrustworthy (especially since it flies in the face of what the British police say themselves, plus two UK government inquiries), and I too have been thinking about if that paragraph could be changed to better reflect the nature of his claim. --Sus scrofa 14:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sean O'Callaghan's biased rantings have no place in an encyclopedia. I agree that it's quite clear that the fellow is completely untrustworthy, and as such, he cannot be considered areliable source, and surely one that does not adhere to a neutral point of view.   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 14:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Our feelings about O'Callaghan are irrelevant. He said it, and it has been reported in a reliable source. So as long as it is attributed properly then it isn't an issue. Readers can make their own mind up about O'Callaghan. Stu   ’Bout ye!  14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. These aren't "my feelings" about the fellow; those are quite irrelevant.  His publications fail WP:RS and should not be included in an encyclopedia.   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was reported in The Telegraph, which is a reliable source. O'Callaghan may be wrong, but he made the claim and it was reported. So again, as long as it is attributed properly it isn;t a problem. Stu   ’Bout ye!  14:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It's not like we're sourcing from Willie Frazer's website. One Night In Hackney 303 14:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So anything that is attributed properly is fair game, is it? Please check out WP:RS.   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 15:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sean O'Callaghan has made many allegations over the years, and in many cases has given different versions of the same events in different interviews and media articles, he is a discredited source and shouldn't be used, unless there are other sources to support his allegations.--padraig3uk 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on O'Callaghan's claims are exactly that, your POV. He is a former IRA member and he made these claims. The claims were then reported on in an independent, reliable source. There's nothing else to say really. Stu   ’Bout ye!  15:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mate, it's not an opinion: it's a fact that Sean O'Callaghan cannot be considered a reliable source. 1 gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 15:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He is the primary source and it has been reported on in a reliable secondary source. If there were no reliable secondary sources reporting that he made the claim then it would be a problem, but that's not the case. It doesn't matter if his opinions or claims are reliable, he is a former IRA member so his opinions matters. Stu   ’Bout ye!  15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Stu, I didn't give an opinion on him, I stated the facts about some of his allegations, where he has been proven a liar by different accounts of events that he has given, which is why I said he shouldn't be used as a source unless it is supported by other evidence.--padraig3uk 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then these inconsistancies can be included. Stu   ’Bout ye!  15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

O'Callaghan has zero credibilty, the guy lives in a fantasy world - well actually he lives in Ruth Dudley Edwards flat - but you know what I mean.--Vintagekits 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, sourcing Sean O'Callaghan is clearly inappropriate for an encyclopedia  gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 15:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What about on his own article?--Vintagekits 15:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, good point, hehe! I'm not sure of the exact criteria of using such a source on the fellow's own article.  I do know that using him to make claims about others is bad form, however   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Says who? If you have a source discrediting him, then that can be added as a caveat to his claim. Otherwise, it is just your POV that he is unreliable. Either way, the claim should remain. Stu   ’Bout ye!  16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Says WP:RS that he shouldn't be used. Also, it's beyond me how you cannot see this.  A comparison that may help you understand is like a former American soldier who informed for Al Qaeda talking about US military leadership?  Would you trust that the fellow would give an unbiased account given his sympathies to Al Qaeda?  Of course not!   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 16:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's beyond me how you can't see why O'Callaghan's claim should be included. The facts are that he was a former IRA member who turned informer. The fact that he became an informer makes his claims even more important. Yes, he is widely discredited in republican circles, but this doesn't mean the claim shouldn't be included. The article doesn't state that Finucane was an IRA member, but that O'Callaghan claimed he was. Stu  ’Bout ye!  09:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine if you want to make that claim using a reliable source. O'Callaghan does not meet this criteria under Wikipedia's policies.     gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 10:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please state exactly why you believe O'Callaghan is an unreliable source, including the relevant section of WP:RS. Stu   ’Bout ye!  11:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is true that O'Callaghan never mentioned meeting Finucane at that IRA meeting in his autobiography The Informer (as it says here, I think we can safely disregard his claims in this matter. The Finucane killing was high profile at the time and O'Callaghan would most probably have mentioned any IRA connection of Finucane at the time of writing his biography if he knew anything about that. The accusatory opinion piece in the Telegraph only appeared after the conclusions of the Stevens Report were published (it dismissed the accusation completly) and I therefore think we can safely disregard O'Callaghan's words in this matter.--Sus scrofa 14:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it is included in The Informer or not, I presume it isn't. But I can't see how that's relevant. He might have omitted for any number of reasons. We would be guessing. Stu   ’Bout ye!  16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't think of one reason he didn't actually.--Sus scrofa 16:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to Sean O'Callaghan, he's a former low man in the IRA. Upon confessing to two murders, he was sentenced to something like six hundred years in prison. Not wanting to spend the rest of life in prison, he became an informer for the Garda and the British. Here are some details as to his uncredibility:


 * In his book he "gives a detailed account of a conversation with Sinn Féin's former Director of Publicity, Danny Morrison, in Crumlin Road Jail in 1990. He claims that Morrison told him of a secret IRA Army Council strategy which proves that the peace process is a sham." Morrison had never been a member of the IRA and would have no knowledge of anything of this sort. He also tried to commit suicide "at least two times" while interned.


 * "He told the Sunday Times he handed himself in while he was suffering from depression. This explanation fits a pattern of crises in his life associated with problems with his mental health (his late father told the Sunday Business Post that he took Seán for a psychiatric examination when he was fifteen years old and an Irish Special Branch detective told the Sunday Times that O'Callaghan ``cracked up at the time he left Tralee in 1985)." Not only does this lend to his mental instability, he's also given conflicting reasons for turning himself in to the Garda numerous times.


 * He's said that Gerry Adams asked him for advice on how to kill John Hume in 1982. This statement is beyond ridiculous for numerous reasons, one of which is that Adams and Hume worked on a joint peace strategy in the 1980's. In addition, Hume and the SDLP are often credited with helping SF take a more moderate position. This more moderate position, implemented partly under Adams' own leadership, caused an enormous republican split, and they've still yet to reunite. Seems a bit silly to want to kill a fellow whose advice you took to heart so much that you were willing to risk alienation from your own party, doesn't it?

These examples are only a few of many. To summarise, the fellow has a grudge against the IRA and republican leadership, is an informer (which by nature, can't be trusted, as they lie as part of their "job" as an informer), and has made numerous contradictory statements. If you wish to make claims about Finucane being in the IRA, please feel free to do so, but make sure to use a scholarly, credible, reliable source. gaillimh Conas tá tú? 20:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether you consider him a "low man" or not, the facts are that he was a volunteer who took part in several killings who then turned informer. The fact he turned informer does not discredit him as you claim, it makes his claims more important. You state Morrison wasn't an IRA member. The Morrison article isn't very well sourced at the minute, but it does clearly state he was an IRA member. I'll look at improving the sources on this article. The fact that he suffered from depression is entirely irrelevant. Are we going to discount everything any person says if they suffer from depression? The John Hume thing is interesting, but again not a reason to discount O'Callaghan. Your above points should be included in the O'Callaghan article if properly sourced. But to exclude him claims about Finucane is whitewashing. The claim should be included in the article, properly attributed and referenced to the Telegraph article. This isn't about WP:RS, it is about whether readers believe O'Callaghan or not, which they can decide themselves. We simply state the facts, let them speak for themselves, and let people make up their own minds. Stu   ’Bout ye!  08:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it's a question of when a accusation becomes so far fetched that it doesn't deserve to be repeated. Informers are (or should be) infamous for their untrustworthiness as they have every incentive to lie to please their employers. Se for instance the Supergrass (informer) article: "Many convictions based on supergrass testimony were later overturned, and the supergrass system was discontinued in 1985." This alone would perhaps not be enough to discredit O'Callaghan's claims but as it stands it flies in the face of two UK government reports and statements made by UK police themselves. There's also the question of timing as noted above.--Sus scrofa 11:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but O'Callaghan made the claim in 2003. And the government reports that condradict his claims can be mentioned in the article as well. Again, if all the facts are mentioned then readers can make up their own minds. Stu   ’Bout ye!  11:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is fundamentally about WP:RS actually, as this is an article on the English Wikipedia, which has its own standards and criterion for inclusion. Sean O'Callaghan is an unreliable source, and as is mentioned "extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources."  Mentioning Finucane's IRA involvement or the lack thereof is fine, but please use a better source for this.    gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 14:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Still disagree, have requested a third opinion. Stu   ’Bout ye!  11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea, thanks for taking the initiative! As a related aside, though, I would love to see some sort of community discussion revisiting a lot of these Ireland-related contentious issues, as there's been a few of us that are constantly meeting on various article talk pages workings towards sorting things out.  We all appear to have different perspectives, although there is some overlap.  As such, it'd be nice to take this a step further to get a better IMOS or something   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 14:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The 3O was rejected as more than two editors are involved in the debate. I might open an article RfC on it.
 * I would welcome anything that helps solve the editing problems in Irish articles at the minute. Stu   ’Bout ye!  15:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sean O'Callaghan's claims is one of the most seniour informers within the IRA ever, refusing to acknowledge his allegations of Finucane's involvement with the IRA is a whitewash. Sean O'Callaghan was a witness against Thomas Murphy when he sued the Sunday Times for libel for accussing him of terrorism. So a court of law considers O'Callaghan's evidence on membership of the IRA to be relevant and credible.--172.188.118.24 19:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring
I'm attempting to try and re-order the article into some sort of coherent order. I'm trying to put the background first, like his brothers and who his clients were. The latter has to come before everything else, because it was the photo with McGeown that led to his death. There's still a few sentences that need moving about the place, but I'm pressed for time tonight so if anyone else wants to try and sort it out in the meantime feel free. One Night In Hackney 303  18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)