Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21f01f8cb9ec6fa

Jump to content

Talk:Financial Intelligence Unit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 month ago by USnoozieULoozie in topic Removal of Executives list and other clean up

Removal of Executives list and other clean up

[edit]

This information seems unnecessary and I believe would fall under the Wikipedia:Coatrack articles policy. Only one appears to have an article, which would mean the notability mentioned in the introductory statement hasn't been met - right?

There is also repeated information in the "Overview" and "Examples" sections. As a newer editor, I would like to help with the clean up, but could someone please confirm I would not be out of line by making some big changes? USnoozieULoozie (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am of the same view. As an encyclopedia entry, it should not contain all the text about the FIU threshold for the US and the EU FIU Network and its executives. The Examples section needs to go. The Egmont article has the list of members, so anyone who wants to explore can just go there.
I added a couple of sources and minor additions; skipped copy edits because I think that a large chunk of the article is good for deletion. Same dilemma as you; I don't want to be that guy. However, as we agree, I guess we can go ahead with the cleanup Ar1201u1 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I decided to "be bold". I think this covers most of what you mentioned. I removed the heads of FIUs based on the fact that, all but one would not be considered notable, and it looked like it was simply inserted into an existing section. I did a handful of other fixes with punctuation and list format consistency. It looks and reads better now to me. It is not perfect, but it has improved. USnoozieULoozie (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply