This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
The reference does not mention this company. Does this company really warrant it's own page? Surely by the end of May this page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmythy2 ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
To clarify; security at Bellanaboy has been provided for years by Brendan Gilmore Security, a Longford-based firm. Since Shell started working at Glengad in the summer of 2008, security there has been provided by IRMS (who also worked on the Solitaire when she was at anchor at Killybegs). Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 11:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: [5]
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)
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)
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)
Unfortunately this isn't enough in itself as per WP:V, in particular this section:
GainLine
♠
♥ 20:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:OR, particularly this bit:
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
♠
♥
My problems here are as follows:
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)
"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
♠
♥
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)
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)
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)
I've made a small edit that redresses the balance and is factually correct and referenced. Cathar11 ( talk) 10:44, 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 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)
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)
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 spaces Cathar11 ( talk) 16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) It was registered on 10/09/2004. source CRO. Cathar11 ( talk) 16:13, 12 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
The reference does not mention this company. Does this company really warrant it's own page? Surely by the end of May this page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmythy2 ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
To clarify; security at Bellanaboy has been provided for years by Brendan Gilmore Security, a Longford-based firm. Since Shell started working at Glengad in the summer of 2008, security there has been provided by IRMS (who also worked on the Solitaire when she was at anchor at Killybegs). Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 11:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: [5]
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)
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)
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)
Unfortunately this isn't enough in itself as per WP:V, in particular this section:
GainLine
♠
♥ 20:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:OR, particularly this bit:
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
♠
♥
My problems here are as follows:
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)
"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
♠
♥
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)
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)
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)
I've made a small edit that redresses the balance and is factually correct and referenced. Cathar11 ( talk) 10:44, 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 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)
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)
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 spaces Cathar11 ( talk) 16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) It was registered on 10/09/2004. source CRO. Cathar11 ( talk) 16:13, 12 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)