Talk:Integrated Risk Management Services

The reference does not mention this company. Does this company really warrant it's own page?

Division of labour

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 company isn't mentioned in either of the articles that're linked as sources though, so they can't be used. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. IRMS is the only (land-based) security firm Shell have used at Glengad. Ask them; here's their freephone number: 1800 201525. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources should be removed. "Call this number to confirm" can not be seriously considered to be a method of referencing pages.Féasógach (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Willie Corduff

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 [1]). 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.

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)

Michael Dwyer

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: [2]. 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 [3]. I believe Resevz and Dwyer are shown together with camcorders in the article. See yesterday's article in the Mirror [4]. 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: [5]

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)

Original research

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)