Talk:Integrated Risk Management Services

The reference to Willies Corduff makes no mention of IRMS in the article. As this is an allegation, I don't see how it can stay in the article. I'm pretty sure its breaking WP:NPOV. At the very least it would need a much more substantial reference. GainLine ♠ 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There's only one security company working in Glengad. This has been the case for a year now. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No ones Disputing that but as it stands you are making allegations and an encyclopedia is no place for that. The article used as a ref doesn't even mention them. It simply doesn't stand up until somebody proves that IRMS were responsible. It needs to be removed until if and when thats proved. GainLine ♠ 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not disputing that. I'm not making allegations, Corduff is. The article doesn't say that six balaclaved IRMS men battered and kicked and beat him with a truncheon in the wee hours of the morning until he lay still. It says Corduff alleges they did. Even the guards have confirmed in a statement that Corduff was "removed from the compound by security staff." They do have a way with words, don't they? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heres the text of the reference:-

A protester who bedded down under a truck at the site where work is taking place on the controversial Corrib gas pipeline has claimed he was beaten up by a gang of men at the compound in the early hours of this morning.

Willie Corduff, a member of the Rossport Five, who were jailed for 94 days in 2005 over their opposition to the routing of the onshore pipeline, was taken to Mayo General Hospital in Castlebar.

Mr Corduff (55) claims he was dragged from under a truck at around 3.45am by at least six men dressed in black and wearing balaclavas who beat him viciously about the head and knees.

“I thought they were trying to kill me,” said Mr Corduff. “They beat me until I stopped moving. I heard one of them say, ‘Stop now lads, he’s nearly finished.”

Earlier this week Shell EP Ireland decided to resume efforts to lay the offshore section of the pipeline after its environmental management plan was approved by Minister for Energy Eamon Ryan.

Mr Corduff and two other local men climbed under the truck at midday yesterday in an attempt to halt work at the site at Glengad, Bellanaboy. The other two men were removed but Mr Corduff vowed to stay under the vehicle until he had evidence that Shell had authorisation for their work.

In addition to his claims of having been attacked by a gang, Mr Corduff also said that gardaí had thrown stones at him yesterday in an attempt to remove him from under the truck.

Gardaí are today investigating an incident at Shell’s Corrib site in which they say up to 15 people wearing balaclavas and carrying tools, bars and chains vandalised the area last night. It is not known if the two incidents are connected.

A spokeswoman for Shell EP Ireland said the company would not be issuing a statement regarding recent activities at the site while the Garda investigation was continuing."

IRMS aren't mentioned at any point in it. It says a gang of men.

On a related issue why no mention of the security guards being attacked during the break in? GainLine ♠ 19:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't believe it. The newspaper is reporting at third-hand, repeating what Superintendent John Gilligan of the Press Office (until recently in charge of policing the Corrib gas project in northwest Mayo) has told them the IRMS has told Gardaí. I know for a fact Willie Corduff has been hospitalised; all the guards have said about the security guard is that he received an injury to his arm and had to seek medical attention. That may be true; punching people can hurt your arms if you're not careful. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't believe it Its not a matter of belief that in itself isn't enough, Your reference is unreliable. It doesn't back up what youre saying in the article. If you introduce something into an article then it has to be more than something you believe yourself. As it happens I would probably agree with you that it was most likely employees of IRMS but until that can be verified you are simply making allegations. Until its proven and verified I'm removing this from the article. As for the other, People in balaclavas armed with iron bars etc broke into the compound, hot wired a vehicle and did some extensive damage. It was worthy of a slot on the news. There's a bit of double standards going on hereGainLine ♠ 21:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I am not making allegations. Corduff is. The people who removed the illegally-erected fence were not wearing balaclavas. The newspapers and TV reported it as such because the police told them that's what happened. But the police weren't there, and they're not even pretending they were (see ). This is their biggest propaganda stunt yet. Your comment about double standards is bang on the money. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time looking for an article from a reliable source that says it was IRMS. There's none. The text of the reference at NO POINT mentions IRMS. I'm reverting it now. If you can highlight in the text above I'll put it back. The problem here is that reference and the article don't match what's said.

Checking policies, the form you wish to present the article in is in contradiction to WP:V. In particular: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

The format that you are presenting the article in (IE. Saying that Corduff alleges it was IRMS) is not meeting the WP:WEASEL guideline as its a statement that automatically makes people reading it assume IRMS is guilty. Read the list of examples and you can see that it is in the the list of words not to use.

I know this is up for mediation but I'm going to draw your attention WP:SOAP again. Especially the points; Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.^[1]

Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.

Again, I'm not trying to be an apologist for Shell or IRMS, I'm merely trying to keep balance. As you can see I was just as quick to remove text making similar allegations at least twice from the Shell to Sea article. As I have said before I believe there is reason to argue the point that IRMS employees may have been responsible for this but shouldn't be included until this is verifiable. This is exactly the same similar to the reasoning that I am using for removing the attacks on the compound from the S2S article. Remember your WP:COI. Ask yourself that by going down this road if you are editing with great caution. The articles that we have worked towards consensus on have already shown themselves to be all the better for it so lets keep going GainLine ♠ 21:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You write: "The format that you are presenting the article in (IE. Saying that Corduff alleges it was IRMS) is not meeting the WP:WEASEL guideline as its a statement that automatically makes people reading it assume IRMS is guilty." How, exactly? Why do you think people would "automatically" believe the allegation? Is it because you did? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Again you're being deliberately obtuse. I've been following events in Mayo in the media for quite a while but to anyone unfamiliar with the subject matter here, it overburdens the guilt on IRMS. However THAT IS NOT THE POINT HERE. The reason this can not be included as no where in the reference does Corduff allege IRMS were responsible as you are saying here GainLine ♠ 14:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do people think we should mention the former IRMS employee recently killed by police in Bolivia? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't really see it being relevant myselfGainLine ♠ 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. He's certainly the most famous person ever to have worked for them. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeh but if this were an article on McDonalds would he deserve a mention? Its interesting but I'm sure theres a lot more to come out on that story. At a stretch it may be notable on a biography article of him. GainLine ♠ 19:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

McDonalds? I agree with you that there's a lot more to come out. He travelled to Bolivia with 17 or 18 others, most of whom came back. I'd be very interested to know if any of these men have recently taken up (or taken back up) employment in Mayo. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you're probably correct, Michael Dwyer is worthy of a mention here. What employment his travel colleagues returned home to is probably the least interesting aspect of his story. Ie. a young man from Ireland with no military experience, no criminal record, minimal security experience and seemingly no political affiliation is killed by police because he involved in a plot to kill the president of a country with a poor track record of democracy?? GainLine ♠ 21:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A gun nut with a Nazi tattoo (does that qualify as political affiliation?) gets into bad company in Mayo and ends up in a plot against a government that has cost Shell a lot of money. If the Hungarian who introduced him to the group's leader is back working in Mayo, that would be very interesting. Here's some more background for you: . Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly; no, otherwise America would have 3 major political parties . I haven't heard anything about him having a Nazi Tattoo. The picture isn't clear at all, it could be anyone. That article doesn't say anything that hasn't been already reported. As I said, his old employment is the least interesting part of his story, he seems to have gotten himself into a lot worse company in Bolivia although there was a video released to say that the group was working in Santa Cruz were there on a consultancy basis. There doesn't seem to be any angels there and it appears that a foolish young man got himself in over his head. GainLine ♠ 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

He went to Bolivia with a man he worked with in Mayo, Tibor Resevz, Supreme Commander of the Szekler Legion, a far-right ethnic Hungarian paramilitary group . I believe Resevz and Dwyer are shown together with camcorders in the article. See yesterday's article in the Mirror . Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to our friends in the Mirror, they're not exactly a shining beacon of journalistic standards. I'd be more interested to see what comes of this:

Here's two more pics of your innocent abroad: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-images-on-familys-black-day-1725712.html Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Saw that in the Indo this morning. Can't see Hitler or Goering with that tattoo tho! I never made any assertions to his innocence or guilt, you'd do well to show a little more respect for the deceased. GainLine ^♠_♥ 18:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Respect for Hitler and Goering because they're dead? You have some strange notions. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response or anymore responses to this thread, grow up GainLine ^♠_♥ 19:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a relief. You wouldn't know where that road would take you. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got this page on my watchlist, and I am thinking of how to deal with this situation, however I will likely not take any action and not reveal my cards until mediation commences. Best, Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about "Integrated Risk Management Services", not "Shell Security". Main article edits alleging IRMS employees did something should explicitly refer to IRMS, otherwise, they are unsourced origianl research. Attempts to bypass this, by inserting into the article claims against some unnamed, generic "Shell Security" are inappropriate - as this article is not about Shell's security practices. It has been noted that you have a clear COI here, and are trying to write the article on the basis of your personal knowledge- Wikipedia is not the place for this. NoCal100 (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've written above, IRMS are the only security firm Shell use in Glengad. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

According to which reliable source? NoCal100 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

All I have seen. See if you can find a reference to any other security company working for Shell in Glengad. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this isn't enough in itself as per WP:V, in particular this section:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

GainLine ♠♥ 20:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So if a paper makes reference to police violence in Mayo, are we forbidden from describing the police as Gardaí unless the article specifies they are? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:OR, particularly this bit:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

This is a core policy, you can't just ignore it because it doesn't suit you. I'm not being drawn into your tactic of arguing a small irrelevant point to the detriment of the bigger picture. As you can see I sourced a ref and introduced this info back into other articles. Co-operation rather than constant conflict would be far more constructive. GainLine ^♠_♥

There's only police force putting old men into hospital in Erris. There's only one security company putting old men into hospital in Glengad. No others are referred to in any reliable sources, and unless Shell jettisons these Neo-Nazis for another crowd, none will be. I don't understand what your problem is. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My problems here are as follows:

• You have a conflict of interest and are editing aggressively on topics that you are involved with. You say on your userpage that to mention if you are over stepping the boundaries due to your COI, I've said it a few times and its been ignored.

• Also being ignored are WP:OR & WP:V and many many other policies & guidelines just because you don't like them or they don't suit whatever point you are trying to push.

• I have sought to work with you but at almost every step you have sought out conflict, rather than being constructive you seek to argue on small irrelevant points rather than working towards compromise or concensus.

• This is not a forum for your campaign against shell, the gardaí & whoever else you dislike. WP:soapbox has been explained to you many times at this stage. As is evident from the thread above you have a serious problem with those parties which is preventing you from editing with a WP:NPOV and if you can't do that then you shouldn't be editing them, period.

• You are incapable of stepping back from the topic and seeing the bigger picture, I have attempted to maintain balance in some of these articles but you are only interest in pushing your own POV which means they end up reading like puff, This ends up selling the topic short and despite what you might think, I care a great deal about the goings on in Mayo. Unlike you though, I am seeking to have them represented in a balanced way so that the uninformed can make up their own minds on the basis of facts.

I am asking you to read this, take it on board and go forward from here in a more positive manner. GainLine ^♠_♥ 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read and taken on board what you have said, and I disagree with almost all of it. You still haven't answered my question. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." Not only are you incapable of seeing the bigger picture, you aren't capable of seeing any point of view that is in any way divergent to your own. I would have thought that was as comprehensive an answer as you could have got. If it is the Police V. Gardaí point then here is my answer:- The Gardaí ARE the police force of Ireland as you well know. This is easily verifiable by many reliable 3rd party references. You forget that people may read these articles do not have your intimate knowledge of the subject and there is a potential for confusion when introducing info in the articles in the manner that you insist upon. That is the point of WP:V and WP:OR so that people can verify the info for themselves.

Now I have answered your questions I would like you to answer mine: Please tell me What you disagree with in relation to the points I've raised above and more importantly why? I do not understand why you continually seek out conflict. GainLine ^♠_♥

I certainly don't seek out conflict; for example, I haven't reverted your edit of four days ago even though I believe it should be reverted, because I hope to reach agreement here. To answer your points:

• • I'm not editing aggressively (see above), but I often find myself reacting to aggressive editing. I suspect others also have conflicts of interest (I'm not necessarily including you); the difference is I have declared mine. Yes, I've asked people to tell me if they think I'm overstepping the mark; but then I have to make a judgement on whether they're correct or not. You're not.

• • I disagree with your interpretation of many of our guidelines; that you believe I'm ignoring them is down to this.

• • We have worked together and reached consensus on occasion, and I hope we do in the future; it's disingenuous of you to suggest I seek out conflict, and insulting to suggest points I raise are "irrelevant".

• • I agree this is not a forum for my or anyone's campaign against whoever; nor is it a forum for their apologists, a point that seems to have escaped you. Whether I have a problem with the parties you mention is not the point; if only people who admired or felt neutral about fascism were allowed to edit articles about it, a lot of editors would have to stay away. I disagree that I cannot edit from a neutral point of view.

• • Your opinion of "the bigger picture" sounds interesting; could you elaborate on it? I disagree that you are "seeking to have [the facts] represented in a balanced way so that the uninformed can make up their own minds on the basis of facts. Certainly not always, and I also disagree that I am not.

• • The Gardaí are one police force in Ireland; they are not the only one, but I see where you're coming from. I'm going to take your non-answer to my question as agreement that a reference to simply "police" in Mayo does not preclude us from taking this to refer to the Gardaí, as this is what it would almost certainly mean; now can you see where I'm coming from? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick aside (while I've been following this debate, I've deliberately not been participating) - you mention you've asked people to tell you if you're overstepping the mark, but you don't think GainLine's correct when stating so. I'm just wondering, is there any point where you feel you have stepped over? (this is purely curiosity, I'm not looking for you to name specific articles or edits). Also, I think if you suspect some people of having a WP:COI, then maybe you should mention it in the Mediation (though maybe that's impolite? I not sure). Finally, the point you bring up about fascism is a bit misleading - people can feel whatever they want about something, but should always edit in a neutral fashion. As always, I won't reply to this thread again (unless something comes up). Thanks! Fin©™ 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Something like a reply, or something else? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's reason to respond! =) Thanks! Fin©™ 19:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume that means you're not going to answer my question (about overstepping the mark), or respond to my other comments. Thanks! Fin©™ 00:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• So even if some brings up a COI concern, its not really going to be taken on board unless it meets some of your own criteria? Thats a COI in itself. Please tell me the grounds that I'm not correct on this. Your point would carry more water if it were not for the fact that Falcon9x5 has raised it, Alison brought it to your attention before she retired and NoCal100. Theres 3 other editors. Surely we can't all be wrong? As a matter of interest, what editors do you believe are editing with a COI in the opposite direction?

• While I can see that guidelines can be interpreted in many ways, the point I have been debating on here falls under WP:V, a policy. It says that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth that it has been published elsewhere as a reliable source. Its as simple as this, nowhere does it say IRMS staff were responsible for the alleged attack. Where is the room for interpretation there? The fact that I have introduced info into other articles means that I am not against the inclusion of the incident itself, just that it must be verifiable. If this info were presented as you wish then a reader following the link would be confused about the fact that in the article says IRMS were responsible but the source says Shell security staff. Also think why IRMS aren't mentioned in the newspapers, one reason is that its potentially libel and another is that it could possibly prejudice any potential legal action if it were to be brought against IRMS or whoever. Use your ceann.

• You employ a tactic of arguing on small points to the detriment of the larger point being argued, whether you realise it or not. The articles we reach agreement on have been far better for it, the POU article certainly is.

• I am NOT AN APOLOGIST for any of the parties here, I have problems with the way the government have dealt with this situation. To say that is what I would constitute a personal attack. That is out of order as are some of the remarks you made on the Michael Dwyer thread. Please be civil. The fact that you have a problem with the parties is very much the point.

You say:- There's only police force putting old men into hospital in Erris. There's only one security company putting old men into hospital in Glengad. No others are referred to in any reliable sources, and unless Shell jettisons these Neo-Nazis for another crowd, none will be. I don't understand what your problem is.

Now Imagine I were to say The Shell to Sea Campaigners are a bunch of hippies and left wing cranks. Wouldn't you find it very difficult to believe that any info that I introduced into a Shell to Sea article that portrayed them in a negative light was in good faith? You are trying to enter something that would portray the subject in a negative light into an article that isn't currently verifiable. On this same discussion page you call this company "Neo Nazis" and yet claim to be capable of editing an article relating to it with a NPOV, can you see the contradiction in that? If we were talking about Combat 18 you would be correct but we are talking about a term used in a derisory manner for the sake of it. (Oh and don't try bring Michael Dwyer into this, one swallow doesn't make a summer, one individual who had links doesn't make all the employees there the same.)

• The bigger picture is the fact this is an encyclopedia, people are entitled to come here to read facts and nothing else. When something doesn't present the facts in a balanced manner it comes across as puff. This means it lacks authenticity and any good points in the article are lost. When I first came across the Shell to Sea page here, it read like a propaganda piece, there were some solid facts in it but they are all lost amongst the other stuff. (incidentally I apolgise I took the piss there, I should have treated things more seriously.) If somebody who is not well versed with the subject were to read the article in that format and formed the same opinion then any worthy points would be dismissed. By the way, Rossport Solidarity Camp is a glaring example of this. The problem is that you are so convinced that you are "correct" that you become myopic to the point where you can't see another POV.

• As the PSNI don't obviously operate in the ROI then of course I dont have any problems with sources that say police when referring to them, providing they meet Wp:Rs. Just because they appear on google news doesnt make them reliable. Me agreeing that point doesn't mean I am agreeing to the allegations on IRMS being entered into this article when the source identifies them as shell security.

The Simple fact here is that you haven't really answered any of my points beyond saying a longer and more contrived "I disagree". That in itself isn't nearly enough to address the concerns. As it stands I am not alone in this, other editors say the same to you, yet you choose to ignore them or disagree, whatever way you word it, it all boils down to the same. GainLine ^♠_♥ 18:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed the edit about James Farrell denying allegations, I don't see how it's relevent to the article. Royaldutchshellplc.com is not a reliable source. If you can link to the original IMOS article then perhaps some aspect of that could be worked into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.149.234 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The link's to the London Times. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note on my own edits - sections related to employees and what they currently do or did aren't relevant to the article itself (they'd be relevant in the employee's own article, however) - for example, Apple Inc. doesn't state that Steve Jobs used to be CEO of Pixar, but his own article does. Michael Dwyer's the exception because of the massive media coverage. I removed some weasel words ("controversial") and excessive detail about Willie Corduff's hospitalisation (the point is that he was assaulted, other details aren't necessary). The detail on the IRMS website being updated is also unnecessary. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"the point is that he was assaulted, other details aren't necessary". Really? How did you decide that? Is this Wikipedia policy for all assault victims? IRMS began "updating" their website after Dwyer's death led some journalists to notice the photographs of men with handguns alongside information on IRMS' "international security" work. Those pictures and information have since disappeared. This "updating" needs to be fleshed out rather than blanked. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Em, I just decided it myself, I doubt there's a policy for assault victims. Unless you can provide reliable source coverage of the websites change in content, it shouldn't be there. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix magazine, April 24 2009. Not sure if its online but we both know a website that will have a transcript of the article. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Er...you might, I don't - Phoenix's website looks to just be a placeholder. Dunno if Phoenix can be considered reliable anyway, isn't it satirical? Thanks! Fin©™ 17:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just had a look, I see the reference for the article was corribsos. I'd prefer a scan of the article though. Please don't be presumptuous in the future. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Had a quick skim (not read) of the article - it appears to be written under a pseudonym ("Goldhawk"). Again, I'm not aware of Phoenix's editorial policy etc, but I'd be skeptical that an anonymous/pseudonym-written article is a reliable source. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I/m not happy with the way the assault on Willie Cprduff ys dealth with. It is agreed that an assault took place. Jim Farrell said he personally removed him in a trouble free manner. There is evidence of the aftermath of the asssault.- bruising etc on photo & video. Yhese two conflicting versions of the same incident aren't properly reflected in the present wording. Any Ideas? Cathar11 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Read this:- WP:V which states threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. As no one has been charged with assault I don't see how it can be described as anything other than an allegation at present. You can say Corduff alleges he was assaulted and IRMS deny the allegation. Rememeber it must be NPOV. If in the future charges are brought against IRMS, then it could be introduced. You may want to introduce a bit more into Willie Corduff but these two articles cant present conflicting accounts GainLine ♠ _♥ 19:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a small edit that redresses the balance and is factually correct and referenced. Cathar11 (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include both Farrell's assertion as well as the Registrar of Mayo General Hospital's detailing of Corduff's extensive injuries, found in the current issue of Village. For balance. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that, I made some changes for readability purposes and unfortunately had to remove the ref to Mark Tighes blog. WP:SPS states that self published sources such as blogs are unsuitable. If you can find the same info in one of his published articles then you can ref to that. GainLine ♠ _♥ 11:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any guideline about only using English Language References. So I will use them unless you can show otherwise. They are extensively used throughout Wikipedia. Cathar11 (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This article contains 3 photos (too many for an article this size) and their layout makes this article look really messy and unprofessional. Could we drop this to just one and agree on which image to keep? GainLine ♠ _♥ 09:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I vote we keep this one:

• File:Iollan's "arrest".jpg

The others just show employees standing around. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That photo's actually more of Gardaí, I think the other one

• File:IRMS arrest.jpg

'd be better (seeing as it shows more employees), but as long we get it down to one I'm not pushed. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say the first one as it shows an employee actually doing something and working with Gardai as the article states, none of them are of particularly good quality.

GainLine ♠ _♥ 13:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you've decided there's too many photos, but if it has to be one I'd opt for the one showing the IRMS men doing the arresting for the police. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that that the first term or second picture above? Also the correct term is Gardaí. Please be sure to use this term in any articles and not police as the former could be construed to be perjorative in some contexts. GainLine ♠ _♥ 14:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that we have some perspective, it is essential to show the links between I-RMS employees, especially Dwyer (RIP) and Revesz, and the violent events in Bolivia in April 2009, all carefully referenced and by no means new research at this stage. The expression 'weasel words' above is objectionable, while the long absence of I-RMS's website and its recent re-appearance with references to arms deleted deserve mention. - Erbille, 12/8/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erbille (talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

REvamp ongoing.

Cathar, could you please confirm a formation date for the company? I thought I had the correct company from the times article. A ref'ed formation date would be useful for infobox GainLine ♠ _♥ 15:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

see where I went wrong now, my bad. I am intending to add to this so please don't delete sections especially during revamp stage. If you had the formation date, it would be great too. Thanks! GainLine ♠ _♥ 16:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'll look it up now. Contracts Golf Tournament ?? Slane ?? Gay Pride Parade ?? Its starting to look presentable. I had thought about adding corporate info but you've saved me. I was just trying to remove the big empty spacesCathar11 (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) It was registered on 10/09/2004. source CRO.Cathar11 (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Fianna Fail ard fheiseanna too, if I'm not mistaken. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've witnessed them working at the homecoming of the Irish Rubgy Team on Dawson Street following the 6-Nations win, and as event security hired by the Students' Union for the last day of term ball in UCD Féasógach (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't use that as per WP:OR. If you could find a source that would be great. GainLine ♠ _♥ 08:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the construction tag, I think the article has been revamped sufficiently to warrant it. I'm still planning on adding to the events section, I know they provided security to sports, music events etc just difficult getting Wp:Rs GainLine ♠ _♥ 08:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Integrated Risk Management Services. 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/20100113195929/http://www.laprensa.com.bo/noticias/04-06-09/noticias.php?nota=04_06_09_segu1.php to http://www.laprensa.com.bo/noticias/04-06-09/noticias.php?nota=04_06_09_segu1.php

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) 14:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)