Talk:Garda Síochána

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Info box[edit]

we should let reskone write his name on dublin walls , we all had a talk together and all agreed to accept him to put up his name every where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The title in this box, currently "Garda Síochána na hÉireann" should be changed. This is not an accurate representation or translation of the title of the force, which is An Garda Síochána. Nothing else. Imagine if you will having the title of the Met wiki page as "Metropolitan Police of London" and you will see why this is nessecary. (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point is well understood. Though it's worth pointing out that the badge/logo of the service does actually say: "Garda Síochána na hÉireann". So its not without some basis... Guliolopez (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the full and official name is An Garda Siochana Na hEireann and translates to the 'guardians of the peace of Ireland'. Therefore the title is closer amd more accurate than the suggested change but the suggested change is used more often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Gardai failings[edit]

Heres some good links to update for the findings of the morris tribunal.

I don't know enough about the case to update this page.

This page seems to put too much of emphasis on the failings of the gardai. Anybody got positive points to add?

New to Wikipedia and not sure how to select which section to comment on but I just changed some of the text regarding the Scott Medal. Previously it stated that Jerry McCabe was killed by the IRA while they were on ceasefire. It's a common mistake in the Irish media but it's also incorrect.McCabe was killed on June 7, 1996. The IRA ended the ceasefire it called in 1994 in February of 1996 with the attack on Canary Wharf. The ceasefire was not resumed until July 1997. It was in this intervening period when the IRA was not on ceasefire that McCabe was killed. 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure your sophistry makes you clever in your own opinion but a bunch of criminals killing police during a bank robbery has nothing to do with politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

This page was recently moved to Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána is the more proper term (see website). The full form would be appropriate also. Do not move this page without discussion.

zoney talk 18:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would support a move to Garda Síochána. The convention isn't to always use the full official name of things but rather a short, commonly used one. So for example we have European Convention on Human Rights rather than "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", Soviet Union instead of "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", BBC instead of "British Broadcasting Corporation", etc.
The more important thing though is that it is convention not to include the definite article in a title. We don't have "The President of the United States" or "The" anything else so it shouldn't make a difference if the definite article happens to be in Irish. The official, formal way of referring to the guards is to use an as the definite article rather than the, but this doesn't mean you bolt on the definite article in circumstances when you wouldn't otherwise do. So my argument is this:
  • An article title shouldnt begin with the definite article.
  • An article title should not, anyway, always be the most formal, stuffy term.
Iota 19:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Agreed the use of the definite article is to be discouraged. Djegan 19:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's not the easiest of cases this one. Usually I would favour leaving out the definite article in an article title, but since people talk (in English) about An Garda Síochána, leaving the Irish article in there as an integral part of the name, it would seem that the underlying grammatical reality that an just means "the" is best sacrificed to common usage in choosing where to put this article. However, people don't always say "An Garda Síochána" — plenty say "the Garda Síochána". Even their own website is inconsistent on this. From the welcome page: "Welcome to the Garda Síochána Website", "...all aspects of the Garda Síochána organisation." Then on the FAQ page we have: "There are 11,747 members of An Garda Síochána", but further down on the same page: "How do I join the Garda Síochána?" We also have an original quote from 1922 by the first Commissioner: "The Garda Síochána will succeed not by force of arms or numbers, but on their moral authority as servants of the people." It seems to me that while the definite article is often included, people don't stick to it rigidly, so as far as I am concerned it need not be considered an integral, unchanging part of the name. I'm marginally in favour of moving the page to Garda Síochána. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I too agree with moving the page. There's no reason to keep a definite article in the title. -- Necrothesp 01:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone going to object to renaming the article? If not I'll try and find an admin to do the move. Iota 17:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

  • An Garda SíochánaGarda Síochána – "An" is just the definite article ("the") in Irish and shouldn't be included in the title. Seems to be a rough consensus at the moment. - Iota 03:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support Use of the definite article is unnecessary and not generally Wikipedia policy. Necrothesp 10:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support move to Garda Síochána, definitive article should be avoided. Djegan 18:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It isn't a rule that the definite article should be avoided. FearÉIREANN 21:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support, as per comments below. Alai 23:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It just sounds weird without the 'an'. If speaking in Irish, the definite article should most certainly be present. Maybe that's why I think it sounds funny in English - Pete C (talk) 14:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. See my comments above, and what others have said. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voting closed


Add any additional comments
I believe a "user-level move" is possible, but perhaps it's better to wait and see who else rows in. I don't think the rules are exactly clear even for English language definite articles, so there's plenty of room for interpretation. I'd somewhat favour a move (back) to Garda Síochána, broadly. Alai 03:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support a move to Garda Síochána. Use of the definite article is unnecessary and not generally Wikipedia policy. Admittedly, I'm English not Irish, but I've never heard the force referred to as anything other than "the Garda" anyway. -- Necrothesp 10:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I suspect the most common vernacular usage is "the G(u)ards", even. "An Garda Síochána" is not uncommon on RTE -- but equally, RTE is the type of broadcaster that likes to throw in the occasional phrase, sentence or paragraph of Irish pretty much out of any real context, so they're rather a usage law unto themselves. Alai 15:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support move to Garda Síochána, definitive article should be avoided. Djegan 18:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. It isn't a rule that the definite article should be avoided. It is the unnecessary use of it. Ireland has a newspaper called the Irish Independent. However the is not part of the name, so the article is named Irish Independent. However the Irish Times has the definite article in its actual title. So it, correctly, is in as The Irish Times. The Guardian has the definite article in as part of the name of the paper, so it correctly is in as The Guardian, not the Guardian. Án Garda Síochána is the name, meaning The Civic Guards. It is part and parcel of the name. The collective group of individual policemen in the force is Gardaí. But the force as a unit is The Civic Guards/Án Garda Síochána. There is no special reason in this case to drop the definitive article when in plenty of articles here we haven't when the definitive article is part of the official title. FearÉIREANN 21:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the title of a book or newspaper or film we would keep the definite article. They are a completely different case (we italicise them too - it's an accepted convention). The title of an organisation does not need it. Therefore it should not be included (and where it has been the article is usually moved to remove it - any articles that still have it have usually been missed). The use of definite articles in the official names of organisations is usually pretty random at best. Even the Garda themselves don't seem sure, if you look on their website. This is usually the case. If you think about it, most organisations appear sometimes with a capitalised definite article, and just as often without - it would just be silly if we kept all of them and it isn't done in any other encyclopaedia that I've ever seen. -- Necrothesp 23:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note that titles of "works" (including newspapers) are a stated case in which the "the" is always retained, if part of the title proper. But organisations are much less clear cut, and "the precedents are mixed". There was considerable resistance to "The" Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who're a lot more consistent (indeed, insistent) on this than are The Guards. See the naming conventions. Alai 23:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have to say that Nec's arguments I find hilarious. The argument that we keep the definite article in newspapers and films but not in other things is mindbogglingly nonsensical. It implies that wikipedia believes that it should get newspaper and film titles accurate but insists it is OK to be inaccurate on topics. That is so absurd it is funny. It is also not wikipedia policy, as Alai correctly points out. Precedents are clearly mixed.
As to the reliance on websites - what is this strange idea by some on wikipedia that websites are a reliable source on anything. Some time ago there was a discussion over correct names on wikipedia for some prominent historical, political, sporting and religious figures. The mantra of 'but google says . . . ' was trotted out so a group of us checked out the names of 50 prominent figures with google searches and compared the results with objectively verifiable accurate sources. Of the 50, 47 were 'proven' by google searches to have names that are 100% wrong in reality. Among the names websites got wrong are the surname of the Prince of Wales, the full names and titles of his two sons, details on the presidents and prime ministers of Ireland, prime ministers Gladstone, Campbell-Bannerman and a host of others names of popes, names of members of world cup-winning teams, names of famous actors (and also, astonishingly even the name of a rather prominent film was shown in a later search to be spelt completely wrong all over the net!).
Many of the worst offenders were official websites. Buckingham Palace's website is littered with historic inaccuracies about royal history. The Vatican website got information about some popes wrong! The Irish government website famously last year got the name of who was the first Irish head of state wrong. One British police website misspelt the name of its own Chief Constable. A teaching union website spelt 'teacher' at one place as 'teachir'. An official website about the FA Cup some years ago got the date and location of the final wrong and spelt the name of three of the players incorrectly. The White House website was littered with inaccuracies - I got bored and gave up counting after finding 10 elementary ones. Frankly I take most things on the web with one helluva bucket of salt. Unlike hardcopy sources, most websites aren't proofread for factual accuracy, spelling, and many are frankly loopy. One guy in the last few days doctored a lot of wikipedia pages to claim that Ireland doesn't have four provinces!!! If other sites copied though wikipedia articles at a time that his garbage had been planted in, there could be 5, 10, 50 or god knows how many websites replicating his fiction as fact. If it get replicated enough of times, and people believe google searches then many people could end up being complete garbage about how many provinces Ireland has. So please! Come up with something more substantial than a gross misrepresentation of wikipedia policy on definite article use and utterly unreliable websites. FearÉIREANN 00:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Mindbogglingly nonsensical" or not (and I would say it was not at all nonsensical, but that's just my opinion), you will find it is almost invariably the case in encyclopaedias and other reference works and indexes that "works" keep their articles and other things do not, unless they are vital to the understanding. In this case, the definite article is not vital and should not be used. That of course is merely an opinion. I never stated it was any form of Wikipedia policy, and was therefore not "grossly misrepresenting" anything (and find it to be rather a strange accusation that I was). Neither did I say I placed any reliance on websites - I merely used the example to show that usage is very mixed. However, since this is a vote on whether we should move it or not, it's actually our opinions that count. -- Necrothesp 22:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three points:

  • The practice of leaving out the definite article in things other than 'works', as Necrothesp puts it, is a desirable one and followed almost universally. Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN suggests that leaving out the definite article is incorrect. My interpretation would be that in the many, many articles that omit a definite article where one might be included a reader would regard the definite article as implied.
  • Convention is in any case to use the commonly used title, not the strictly correct one.
  • The English definite article is more commonly used than the Irish one anyway. In official sources both definite articles are used. The 1923 law that established the force calls it "The Garda Siochana".

Iota 19:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to argue both ends... the gist of the rule of whether to include the definite article in the page name seems to more or less come down to "would it be capitalised in running text?" Doing a quick google for "an garda", there's plenty of instances of this being done. But that doesn't really speak to Iota's point as to whether it's even included consistently/commonly. Alai 03:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a disinterested party to this debate, I have never heard them called anything but the "Garda", I have tried to copy votes up to the vote section. If I have made a mistake please fix it so that the vote does not misreprsent the postions held. Philip Baird Shearer 13:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 20:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ranks of the Gardaí[edit]

The Garda Síochána Act, 1972 allows the government to make an order determining the ranks and maximum number of each such rank. The most recent is that of 2000[1] as far as I am aware. Prior to this the various acts where used to determine the ranks and number in a similar way, for instance[2] [3]. The lowest rank was "Guard" which now corresponds to "Garda", also of note is that the Gardaí had "Officer" and "Non-Commissioned/Men" divisions. The act of 1958 allowed the entry of women, but made no changes to rank structure. Djegan 20:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Garda Síochána Act, 2005[edit]

The Garda Síochána Act, 2005 will significantly amend the law regarding the gardai. For instance it will allow the creation of reserve members (which is causing some controversy), a code of ethics, revised complaint proceedures, also their is an declaration on appointment:

"I hereby solemnly and sincerely declare (before God) that—

• I will faithfully discharge the duties of a member of the Garda Sıochana with fairness, integrity, regard for human rights, diligence and impartiality, upholding the Constitution and the laws and according equal respect to all people,
• while I continue to be a member, I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all my duties according to law, and
• I do not belong to, and will not while I remain a member form, belong to or subscribe to, any political party or secret society whatsoever."

Many of the previous acts are being repealed, and indeed this act in many ways is simply a restatement of the law. Statutory instruments will remain in force until revoked.

Djegan 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Badges of Other Police Services[edit]

I think badges of previous All-Irish and Northern Irish police services should be in another article as they are not pertinent to the Garda. Jm butler 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

agreed - they are irrelevant to this article 10:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Garda Failings Section[edit]

The Gardai article in general needs a bit of work.

The Garda failings placement in section is questionable as no other Police or Law enforcment article has a similar list of failings. It reads like Joe Duffy radio broadcast! I may make a bold move and remove it to another article entirely. Any thoughts?

Conor 13:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (Forgot to Sign in)

I agree the article requires work to give it a more unified structure, the iterative process of editing on wikipedia does have its drawbacks.
Regarding the failings of the force, this would have to be approached with caution. Removal altogether may look like intolerable censorship, whilst a new article may only underline the issues to thye extreme or risk sounding like a series of crackpot conspiracy theories that can be all to evident against other similar organisations (but an appropriate article on each scandal maybe appropriate to deal with them properly).
Ultimately all police forces have their good and bad days and generally the gardai have served the state, and its people, well.
Djegan 19:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not censorship, it is providing a balanced article. I think this article shoud aspire to be more consistant with other police articles on Wikipedia.
See the following for more details.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Police in France
Police system of Japan
British police
I feel there is an over emphasis on the failings section. For a police force that been in existence such a relatively short time there is too much text (a full quarter) on very recent scandals. The much larger British policing article does not grant as much space to its controversial shootings section, arguably a much more important policing issue. Indeed that is the only other Policing article I have found that has a similar section.
For the sake of uniformity and a more balanced article the failings section should removed, given a seperate article or reduced dramatically.
Conor 11:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not against removal as such, but removal may require some additional subsiduary articles; this would be best implemented on each significant scandal or failing rather than a single over arching article? Certainly other wikipedians may have other ideas and their response would be useful here. Djegan 18:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Other police articles on Wikipedia do include sections with names like 'crticism' and 'controversy'.
Drug Enforcement Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Policing in the United Kingdom
I'm not sure about the section title. Allegations are unproven statements. Unproven statements should not be included in Wikipedia just the facts. This section is a bit messy. If you think about the factual negatives around the gardai, they can be categorised under mistakes, conspiracy and organisational problems. Mistakes would include the many famous crime scenes they failed to preserve like sophie du plantier where they allowed their main suspect to leave prints on everything instead of sealing off the scene(do they not watch crime shows on TV?), screw ups with warrants such as the judge curtin case and the Dermot Laide mistrial, that case where two sets of cops showed up at a bank robbery and opened fire on each other etc etc. Conspiracy would cover cases like McBrearty and the grangegorman murders frame-up. Organisational problems owuld include the time they went on strike by all ringing in sick on the same day. Also in here would be the failure of the PULSE and penalty points systems.
Also we need a section on the new volunteer force. Curtains99 00:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, the other entries for Police Forces around the world don't seem to concentrate on failings. I would suggest that in the interest of fairness, this section be removed. (Sam, UK)

i agree i feel that the section of the abbylara shooting fails to display a neutral point of view in suggesting there is a shoot to kill policy. even the barr tribunal didn't suggest this!~~

i agree that there is an over-emphasis on the gardai's failings.MANY new changes have been/are being implemented,so rather than looking at the negatives,focus on the positives of the force!-AS


Not too sure how to place this in the text, but the caution used by the Gardai is defined by the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997 (Section 6) Regulations, 1997:

"You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence."

Djegan 23:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The caution as worded above comes from The Judges Rules which are a set of guidelines issued by judges in the early part of the 20th century. It is not listed in any law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
As indicated by Djegan, it is referenced in S.I. No. 345/1997. Follow his link, please. StephenD IRL (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
What link? RashersTierney (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997 (Section 6) Regulations, 1997 StephenD IRL (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion concerning the law here. The caution is as stated, not legal but part of the Judges rules. The 1997 act above is not making the caution legal nor is it stating a set caution that Gardai must use but is allowing for a third party to give evidence of arrest, charge and caution in court and as such it states the caution that shall be used on that occasion. Its evidenced in most of Dublins present courts where 'court presenters' hand in certificates to the court. Also, brief description can be found at: (KC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


According to the official Garda website they dont have a badge,so why is there one here? Sgt baker 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting. Per the FAQ [4]:
The uniform of the Garda Siochana does not have badges and patches like other Police forces. Accordingly badges and patches are not available from the webmaster.
However, the term "Garda Badge" in the context of the article refers (not to the cloth badge as such), but to the emblem displayed on the flash. Further, though the garda FAQ does not refer to it directly, the Gardaí do wear metal badges on their caps [5]. I think what we have here is simply a definition issue between the term "badge" (refering to cloth representation of the emblem) and the "emblem" itself. ("Garda Badge" is often used to describe the emblem/symbol. See History of The Garda Badge.) Guliolopez 18:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This requires clarification. An Garda Siochana does not a badge similar to the NYPD or LAPD has. Instead they simple have 'Garda' attached to their uniforms and 'shoulder numbers'. Its the mix of these that equal other forces 'badges' as a form of identifying a police officer in general and carrying that officers unique number. If however we refer to 'patches' then again there is no official patch as Gardai simple have 'Garda' in yellow writing on their backs and chest. It could be deemed a patch but a very boring one. What we do have is a crest and thats similar to most police forces crest or logo. It should be noted however that the ERU does indeed have an official patch and there is an official UN duty patch. Many other areas such as Traffic have their own unnofficial patches. Examples can be seen here: (KC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


In the Terminology section, it states that bangharda is not used much anymore; garda or guard being preferred. I have found the opposite to be true and woman officers always being referred to as bangharda. -Etienne 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Colloquilly maybe but not officially. All guards are guards. Bangarda is sometimes used in conversation, like fireman instead of fire-fighter, but now only a knickname.Afn 17:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It's kinda been deprecated. The official term is 'garda', these days, regardless of gender - Alison 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ned Garvey[edit]

The article says the following: 'Edmund Garvey Sept 1975 Jan 1978 replaced unfair dismissal'. Can anybody elaborate on this? Is it coincidental that Fianna Fáil had recently returned to government? Just why did Fianna Fáil make an election pledge to remove that particular individual when they returned to office? I cannot imagine Ahern make such a promise about Noel Conroy today. Why is it so hard to find online the reasons for his dismissal? The story in newspapers some years ago was that he was in the pay of British Intelligence. In particular, Liz Walsh, writing in Magill, did an exposé on him in the April 1999 issue covering the death of Séamus Ludlow. There was an interview with Fred Holroyd in it where Holroyd said, "Garvey knew the information he was giving me was going back to MI6 because he was aware that I was a conduit for that organization. At one of the meetings he handed me photographs of 200 republicans from the IRA and INLA to take back." The web has an abundance of allegations all of which have the same end: that Ned Garvey was in the pay of British intelligence. Here are some of them:;;; Thu, Aug 14 2003 'Troubling questions to be raised on Dublin bombing' ['Ned Garvey, who was sacked in 1979 by Jack Lynch for reasons that have never been explained, although speculation exists that Lynch believed Garvey had close links with MI5 since 1974'] ('Southern Star' on Unison website). El Gringo 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding allegations against Garvey: Of the 3 links you have provided which you claim illustrate that "the web has an abundance of allegations all of which have the same end: that Ned Garvey was in the pay of British intelligence", the first two links don't even mention Garvey at all (anywhere!). The third link leads to an indymedia article, followed by public comments. The article doesn't even mention Garvey. And of the 75 comments from the public, only one of them mentions Garvey. This comment comes from a person who, in the same post, claims that the British and Irish governments carried out the Dublin & Monaghan bombings!
There has never been any evidence produced anywhere (that I am aware of) to suggest that Garvey was "in the pay of British intelligence", as you put it. Wikipedia is not a forum for entertaining gossip. Wikipedia deals in factual information that can be verified from independent external sources. Until some evidence of this serious allegation can be provided, I believe that this section of the discussion should be removed as it amounts to little more than a serious slur on the intergrity and character of a dead man. It is effectively an accusation of treason, which I'm sure you'd agree is about as serious an allegation as there is. 21:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Strange I found mention of Ned Garvey though not mentioning the allegation within about 5 minutes ( and that includes time to scan the article for his name ) on both of those first 2 links . Garda40 22:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that these contentions amount to little more than gossip until some form of quantifiable evidence can be produced to substantiate the claims. I also found no mention of the former commissioner in the first two links that supposedly indicate he was in the pay of British intelligence. The first of those links just redirects to the Village Magazine homepage; I couldn't find any mention in the second link (after ~10 minutes of searching) either & the third link is merely an internet chat forum - hardly wikipedia standard evidence. Not even the lamentable Gardaí would accept this as a reliable source!
Both links appear to have reorganised their pages since this was last brought up in september 2007.However I did find mention on the Village website here and here of Ned Garvey .The second link is actually the one that mentions the allegation though it is an edited version of an indymedia report which The Village accepted as reliable .Garda40 (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Indymedia as per many many forums, blogs, etc carries half truths, downright lies and unverified opinions. they should not be accepted as genuine proof or to qualify a statement. No official or recognised theory has ever been produced therefore it should remain a mysery (KC)

Coverage Map[edit]

The coverage map in the infobox seems a little confusing to me. Yes I know it covers the Republic of Ireland, but having Northern Ireland on there as another shade of green seems potentially confusing. Maybe it would be better if Northern Ireland was coloured in a shade of light grey as seems standard for geographical maps of this sort. Ben W Bell talk 11:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:GardaSíochána.PNG part of a series Category:British police maps with a consistent design style. Totally inappropriate for this article, of course. A modified Image:Ei-map.svg with just colour, no symbols or text, would be better: if we need such a map at all? jnestorius(talk) 00:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
No arbitrary cities or towns anyway - as its just pov. How about a map showing the regions (as in the article in "Terminology" section), if a good one could be found. Djegan 15:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I made a slight change to this and the PSNI map, didn't notice this discussion at the time. In passing I found that the two shades of green didn't any part distinctive. So I substituted the dark green for a light gray. Hope no one minds. <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk  14:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The map currently shows the whole of the country as a single entity without any detail. As such it conveys no more information than the simple statement "The Gardai are the national police of Ireland". How about showing the regions? Roger (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


As the "correct" English translation ("Peace Guard of Ireland") is not commonly used, indeed it could be original research, I think it should be a footnote if anything and that the common, but apparently mistranslated "The Guardians of the Peace of Ireland" should be in the main body as it can be widely cited irrespective of correctness. Translation is not a science and often their is variance between languages and direct translation is not always appropriate unless a footnote or a trivial. Djegan 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In one sense "guardian" is altra, the same word as "nurse". Niall Ó Donaill's dictionary translates garda as "guard" and Garda Síochána as "Civic Guard". Similar issues with Sinn Féin (19th century) and "ourselves alone": a lot of people say it, so it must be mentioned, but not condoned. I don't mind how the information is arranged as long as people are not misled into thinking "Guardians of the Peace" is correct, rather than twee Oirishry. jnestorius(talk) 00:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Abbeylara A crazed gunman is shot down by police after refusing to surrender a loaded weapon he is pointing at people. This would make a four line box in page 27 of a French, German or American(or any where else) newspaper. Here the gunman becomes victim/hero/martyr and the centre of news of five years. If having being examined by Doctors and Psychiatrists he was unwell to the extent that he may have harmed himself and others (beyond his control) they should, one would assume, instituitionalise him for his and others safety. If he was not unwell in this way, then he was in control of his actions and acting out of pique, self pity and or pure badness when he started taking potshots at people. Being without a cigarette notwithstanding. The by now to be expected inaccurate, incompetent unilateral conclusions of a failed solicitor led to the inevitable spate of copy cat loosers holing up for sieges to work off some rage against the machine.

Sallins It should be noted that the INLA did carry out a robbery on this train. This organisation is explicitly committed to the overthrow of the Republic of Ireland. Whilst there may not be evidence sufficient in a criminal case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that certain persons were responsible that does not mean that they were not in fact involved.

Morris A small number of Officers involved none of whom were dealt with by the ineffectual tribunal process which resorted to blackening the name of an entire organisation and its members as a means to smokescreen its irrelevance and impotency.

Emergency Response Unit[edit]

Why does the link for the Emergency Response Unit lead to the SWAT page?

We used to have a separate page or the ERU did we now?

fixed! - Alison 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Greg Moroney 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Certain Comments[edit]

I did think of blanking all the comments which incidentlly are in the wrong section but settled for the "bits and pieces" which are most potentially libelous so that it couldn't be said I was trying to cover up any rebuttal against the complainers .

However I'm not going to get into a revert war and so if you think they are okay I will not touch them again .

Incidently despite my name I have no connection with THE GARDA .Garda40 10:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


"Guard" is the most common form of address used by members of the public speaking to a garda on duty.

I'd love to know what second and third are. 00:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The correct term of Garda is second followed by officer and in some occasions constable. To our faces anyway ;) (KC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Table needs update[edit]

Can someone check on the table figures which I updated today. There seems to be a conflict on numbers. (Chief Superintendents = 47) V (Chief Superintendents = 25). Gold♥ 14:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The push on Garvey[edit]

Gulio, I read it in Frank Dunlop's Yes, Taoiseach. According to him, Guards were complaining to their TDs, who passed it up to Jack Lynch.

Lapsed Pacifist 11:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "trivial" sections[edit]

An anonymous user removed sections that may portray the subject of the article in a bad light. However, these sections had citations. I was wondering if perhaps these sections should be replaced. Lenore Schwartz 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored them as I explained in the edit summary (instances of possible wrongdoing are hardly trivial) and as you pointed out they had citations plus they where in a section that pointed out there may be POV issues .Garda40 17:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Instances of possible wrongdoing" of the type I had deleted (e.g. single, isolated cases of Garda misdemeanours) are, as I explained, pretty trivial in the context of what is supposed to be a concise and disinterested encyclopedia article. Otherwise, if each incident is so important, shouldn't you go the whole hog and list every single incident of Garda wrongdoing that ever occurred? Such occasional one-off incidents happen in the most well-disciplined police forces and are not in themselves of any particular significance (unlike say, the events in Donegal, which suggested a widespread, systematic disciplinary malaise in the Force, at least in that particular garda division).

Insisting on the inclusion of such isolated incidents - each with their own headline, if you don't mind ("e.g. "drinking on the job") - smacks of pettiness and partiality. But I won't bother changing it back, as I've found that there's little point in trying to ensure balance and neutrality on Wikipedia when others are so determined to impose their own agenda. 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree. There is disproportionate focus in this article on "wrong doing" in general, and isolated cases of "wrong-doing" in particular. Per WP:NOT#INFO, "merely being true does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion". And so, per Anon above, while these items remain factual, their importance in the context of the broader subject is minimal. (That ONE Garda stole fines is not indicative - on it's own - of a broader trend at a higher level.) I will therefore (and under Per WP:NOT#INFO) be moving these individual "small scale" issues under a "general" heading. From there, I will be working on SUMMARISING the wider allegations section. This will be done - not for the purposes of "hiding" or "removing" anything - but because a well editted article in this area will be an improvement. This "dump any and all information from news websites, and make the reader filter through it" does not make for a good Wikipedia article. (Certainly not one with aspirations for WP:FA status at any rate.) Guliolopez 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Garda Failings Section (revisited)[edit]

As noted above, and previously, the "Allegations against An Garda Síochána" section needs some clean-up. I have made a first stab - on my own sandbox.

Word-counters may note that I haven't (at this stage) removed any content. I have just tried to apply some structure to the mish-mash of "allegations" - including consolidation under relevant sections. (All allegations were previously included under their own headings - which made for "clumsy" reading.)

I would welcome any and all comments before considering merging this back to the main article. Guliolopez 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I have no problem with the way you have rewritten the material and agree it does read better now .Garda40 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Gardai failings section is overwhelming and excessive - it needs intensive trimming. Too much of it is about problems that faced society at large (e.g. historic ideas on sexuality that wider society reflected - or government ignored), whilst other mentions are too political or too obscure, for instance political protests and paramilitary collusions. Its not to say that these issues are not deserving of a mention in wikipedia, but an article on the gardai should not be a one-stop-shop of cultural, political or societal failures. Either it should be verifiable, by means of references if need be, that the gardai were at significant fault or sections should be removed on masse. Djegan 23:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry can't agree with you there .These are all verifiable and referenced incidents not just petty criticism of the Garda because "I hate the Gardai" . For one thing how do you define significant ? Is Nicky Kelly significant ? Is Barr significant ?
For whatever reason these incidents might have arisen whether it was cultural, political or societal these type of problems had been faced before in other forces such as The Met and dealt with so it is valid to mention them as criticism since Garda management can't say this has never happened before anywhere .Garda40 00:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Then be my guest and verify and reference the entire section adequately - its poorly referenced by any means at the moment. Remember the onus is on the individual seeking to retain material to provide authoritive references, not on those who wish to remove; re WP:VERIFY. Djegan 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Garda, what you say makes far more sense.

Lapsed Pacifist 07:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK - So it looks like there are no major objections (or suggested changes) to the proposed "categorisation" approach to tidying up the "controversy"/"allegations" section. Obviously, there is still an open issue about what is or isn't either appropriate for inclusion (under NN and VER). However, my proposed changes don't remove anything (and so don't affect this). And so I'm gonna go ahead and make the change (unless there's any last minute objection).
Once the content "tidy" is complete - we can continue the "what to include or exclude" discussion (without the additional complexity of "how to include it" hanging overhead). Guliolopez 14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Have made the changes as discussed above, and included the (recently added) "turban" item. While I think this improves the readability and adds the needed structure to help the reader, the section remains a little long overall. In particular the Morris and Barr content could be summarised, as much of it is dupe with the content from the relevant articles themselves. In the longer term, I think the section (and the related "Garda reform initiatives" section) could do with additional summarisation and restructure to show the affect of these events on the force's structure and operation (All the actual "ins and outs" of the events can be left to the "main articles", or the "references"). In short: Some well exercised editting is required here overall. Guliolopez 21:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"No arrest" policy[edit]

"There were no arrests. That was part of our strategy: we did not want to facilitate anyone down there with a route to martyrdom. That has been the policy ever since." Superintendent Joseph Gannon, Garda Review, Winter edition, 2006 [6].

This is an unprecedented and very political strategy to come up with and maintain for months on end in the face of hundreds of offences. Michael McDowell was never in the habit of delegating these kinds of decisions.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand this comment. Gardai decide Garda tactics and thats what the Super in charge did. Despite paranoid theories, is there any evidence that Minister McDowell ever ordered people to be arrested or not arrested? (KC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaints to Ombudsman on Mayo strategy[edit]

Twenty complaints solely from Shell to Sea on the very first day the Commission opens [7]. Most of those were from Dublin-based campaigners. The Ombudsman's team travelled to Mayo to hear the rest. They stayed for days on end, on at least two different occasions. They're still not finished. Lapsed Pacifist 16:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, making a complaint doesnt mean a wrong was commited. I could equally argue that this is an organised attempt to undermine An Garda Siochana by making false complaints or equally that its an attempt by Gardai to overwhelm the Ombudsman and restrict them. Simple fact is anyone can make any complaint and no matter how insane GSOC must investigate it. I would however point out that no Garda was arrested, charged or disciplined as a result of the opening day complaints (KC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


I have moved the information which was present in this article after the "Garda Air Support Unit", to the newly created article - Garda Air Support Unit --Greg Moroney (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Twinytwo - please stop blanking sections of this article. It is vandalism. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Current Controversy[edit]

How is the shell to sea ordeal the current controversy as there are more recent incidences than this.User_talk:Shambosse 13:30, 18 march 2008

Unarmed force[edit]

I added a citation needed to the claim that all gardai are trained in the use of firearms. I know several members of the force who would claim to know fairly little about the use of guns. The Garda college training page seems to suggest that they are only trained in Firearms legislation and firearms awareness. Also, the same paragraph refers to "a recent report" without giving details.

Minion-for-hire (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says that the Royal Irish Constabulary's requests to be an unarmed force were refused by the British Dublin Castle administration. In reality the RIC were routinely unarmed after the Land League related disturbances died down, from the late 1880's onwards. So, the RIC were as "routinely unarmed" as the Civic Guard were, in fact the decision to have the Civic Guard be an unarmed police force was based on the fact that the previous police force was unarmed.

The claim seems to be based on a single general history of Ireland, not one specific to Policing in Ireland, is inaccurate or at best misleading.

I suggest saying something like "Like it's immediate predecessor police forces, the Civic Guard was routinely unarmed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I intend to amend these sections as routine firearms training stopped in the mid 1990's and since then rank and file Gardai get no trainign in the handling or use of firearms. As for the RIC, they existed in many forms over the years and were often not all armed equally with certain areas arming and certain areas not. In addition the RIC or the 'Barneys' were often employed at local level so its not correct to say they were or were not armed. I dont intend to amend that section —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Extrajudicial punishment[edit]

Re. the above term being repeatedly inserted into the section on Shell-to-sea, both myself and Guliolopez have removed it repeatedly now as we both believe it to be rather obvious POV and OR. Can we please discuss this further here before this turns into a full-on edit-war? Right now, the article is back where it was, but please - there's no evidence that these actions are "punishment" nor are they "extrajudicial" given that the Gardaí are operating within the sanction of the State and are using what would be considered "reasonable force" under the law. YMMV on the latter point, of course. But please, we need to be factual and neutral here and putting the Shell-to-Sea thing into the same category as NKVD troika can be offensive in the extreme to many - Alison 17:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"...operating within the sanction of the State..." is a phrase I'm not sure I entirely understand. My contention is that the Gardaí have agreed to circumvent the judicial process by using force, and where necessary, violence, in order to dampen the negative publicity surrounding the Corrib gas project. I'm satisfied that this circumvention can't help but fall under the definition of extrajudicial, and is illegal. As their superiors have agreed to avoid normal due process, ordinary Gardaí now find themselves in the unenviable position of acting as judge and jury, deciding on the punishment protesters should receive, and then carrying it out. To their credit, many Gardaí have refused to do this, but then there's the rest, eager for promotion and often stinking of alcohol. As for "reasonable force", that's just plain wrongheaded. Batonning unarmed people when there is no threat to either themselves or others? If you haven't already, please see Youtube clip, Report from Global Community Monitor, More4 documentary, Batons out on Youtube. The list goes on, and is likely to increase if they try to force the pipeline through again. Now please explain to me Alison, how is this not extrajudicial punishment, and where in that article is such punishment defined as solely being of the scale you refer to?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have legal concerns regarding the Gardaí Síochána, you really need to address it using a legal platform. Failing that, what you're stating here is simply your point of view and that will simply not work here. It's the classic wiki definition of POV, plain and simple, nor is it our job to judge the Gardaí in the carrying out of their duties. Facts, please - not speculation. Right now, you made the explicit comment that illegal activities have taken place. This is strong stuff indeed, and such allegations, esp. presented as "fact" as you did, have no place on Wikipedia. In fact, there may be legal ramifications, especially since individuals have been identified in photographs here - Alison 06:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not judging the Garda's activities, I'm describing them. There's a world of difference. I don't believe you've read the GCM report in 8 minutes, let alone watched the clips of the violence. I recommend you begin with the More4 documentary, as it's the most professional. Everything I've written here I can back up. Your POV seems to be that the Gardaí are acting legally and within reason. If you can back that up, please do so. You have failed absolutely to argue even remotely convincingly that the Gardaí's Mayo strategy does not come under the definition of extrajudicial punishment, or to rebut any of the arguments I made above.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no actually. You've made the accusation of illegal activity, you back up the claim. Innocent until proven guilty, it's that simple and applies to the Gardaí just as any other person. You're not backing anything up here, to be honest, and the onus is certainly not on me to prove their innocence. Absolutely not. Like I said, it's POV, it's baseless accusations of criminal acts and it doesn't belong here. I note you brushed over the "legal ramifications" part, too, and I've not even got to the whole realm of personality rights yet - Alison 07:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds wonderful, Alison, but you're not addressing any of the arguments I'm compelled to keep making. Like I wrote on Gulio's talk page, the Gardaí have certain rights, including arrest, detention and the ability to charge lawbreakers. Corporal punishment does not fall under this, and is a direct result of the "no-arrest policy" (see the link to the excerpt from the Garda Review in the article) that governs Shell to Sea protests, whether in Mayo or elsewhere. Both the punishment and the policy are illegal, in my opinion, but I have not written this in the article. I have confined myself to describing it for what it is, extrajudicial punishment. I'd be interested in your opinion of the links I gave. Answer me this at least; how does circumventing the judiciary (and then discussing this in a published in-house interview) not fall under the definition of extrajudicial?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is wonderful, however you've ignored everything I've said. Try again? Nor, indeed are you quoting reliable nor verifiable sources; YouTube, various blogs and, unfortunately, IndyMedia won't do. You already know WP:RS and WP:V, I'm sure. Like I said, they are using what would be considered "reasonable force" under the law. Indeed, the scan of Garda Review does not back up your opinion at all; in fact, it contradicts it! Where's the reliable source for corporal punishment being used? All I'm seeing is Gardaí moving protestors to allow the workers access while not making arrests (the "martyrs" comment). Etc etc. You've failed to 1) provide reliable evidence of corporal punishment, sanctioned or no, nor 2) a link from this alleged activity to the no arrests "policy" you cite from Garda Review. Is this the bit where I'm supposed to give up in disgust? - Alison 08:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hang on a minute. This IndyMedia link which is used as a reference to the Shell to Sea controversy on the article page, contains this image ... which is identical to this image on Commons that *you* uploaded to enwiki and released under the GFDL. Even the names are identical. Question: did you write the IndyMedia article that's referenced there. You certainly claim ownership for their images. Something doesn't add up here at all - Alison 08:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of your last question, and I remind you I have an entitlement to anonymity. You don't believe a More4 documentary is a reliable source? You're a hard woman to please. I didn't refer to indymedia or any blog above, please look again. You claim that the Gardaí are using "reasonable force", can you back this up, perhaps with the Garda's or state's own definition? I'm afraid yours won't suffice in this instance. The superintendent admits in the article that there is a policy of not arresting protesters. This denies them due process and circumvents the judicial system. Therefore, the vast majority of protesters do not face the threat of a fine, or a jail sentence, or a criminal record. There's a different punishment in store. How beating people in order to discourage them from protesting is not a punishment escapes me, as a quick read of the first lines of punishment indicates it is exactly that. Punishment that involves violence is known as corporal punishment, Alison. I've another question for you; how many options are left to Gardaí when their power of arrest is denied them by their superiors? It's funny you should mention disgust. Cosmic, in fact.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to bed here. It's 2am. Please note that anonymity is balanced by conflicts of interest and that if you have one, you need to declare it. Now, please explain the ownership of the pictures and what their source is, otherwise I will have to tag/delete them as copyvios. You claim they're yours but IndyMedia is also using them. Why? - Alison 08:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC) (more later on the other points)

I'm involved with the campaign. A lot of the pictures I took myself, those that I didn't I have been given permission to use here. Their use here does not preclude their use on indymedia, in fact quite the opposite. I'm happy to wait for the rest of your reply.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But not forever. It's been four days, and you've made well over 100 edits elsewhere in the meantime.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Please wait some more, as I'm working on it. Silence does not imply assent - Alison 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Silence, in general, does not necessarily imply assent. Your silence may be different.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been eight days, you've made over 200 edits elsewhere without getting back to me as you said you would, so I'm reverting. You seem to be confusing the definition of extrajudicial punishment with that article's content, which focuses on extreme extrajudicial punishment. We should probably have an extrajudicial force article as well. Extrajudicial arrest redirects to extrajudicial punishment, which it shouldn't. The problems lie there, not here.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from entering POV and OR - just because your frothing at the mouth at the thought of capitalism and policing in Ireland it does not mean your exempt from official policy! Djegan (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem actually lies with your POV, your extreme conflict of interests and your bringing of an off-wiki battle to Wikipedia. Honestly, we're only interested in facts, and stated from a neutral point of view - something you've not been doing. Someone else has already reverted back to the NPOV version - Alison 23:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

DJ, your opinions on my opinions are always interesting, but rarely relevant. I don't claim exemption from any policy, official or not (what are our unofficial policies?). Alison, you have signally failed to address any of my arguments, and have returned to muddying the issue by writing about POV, an irrelevance here. What is at issue is the definition of extrajudicial punishment, and whether it applies in this case. You told me you would address my points, but a week later I'm still waiting. I'm happy the version I reverted to complies with NPOV. I've read through WP:COI, and remain content I'm not violating any of its precepts. I shall now revert to an NPOV version.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi LP. I've reverted again. All of the other editors (four of 'em) who have weighed in on this discussion/issue believe that the inclusion of the term represents OR and POV. The simple fact is that the current wording ("physical force") is believed - per WP:CON - to be balanced, neutral and accurate. Please just leave it as a factual statement, and don't add "interpretation". Guliolopez (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While you have certainly claimed it, not one editor has demonstrated exactly how the inclusion of the term breaches those precepts. Nor have you have addressed the points I'm compelled to keep making. On the contrary, I'm fobbed off with "I'll get back to you on that". The introduction by one of you of the term capitalism tells me at least one of you seems to have a different agenda to the one you've stated. I'm happy to leave the term out while we thrash this out. I'm not happy being left hanging. Would you care to address the points I've raised above, Gulio?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Can Lapsed Pacifist provide any references or citations to back up his claims? Snappy56 (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Snappy - No he can't. And hasn't. That's the point. The available supporting cites state that the application of physical force has been admonished by certain bodies. And that is already covered in the text appropriately. There is no supporting cite that the use of physical force in the case can be defined (or has been defined by ANYBODY other than LP) as extrajudicial punishment. He just keeps going round asking us to prove his Original Research to be wrong. Which is not what the project is about. Editors shouldn't produce OR and ask others to prove or disprove it. Editors just shouldn't produce OR at all.
Lapsed Pacifist - To your points. Firstly, I'm uncomfortable commenting on the reason that another editor mentioned the term "capitalism". As it wasn't me and I therefore couldn't say for sure. However I personally wouldn't assume an agenda. I think frankly that it was a question/comment on whether YOU have an agenda rather than anyone pushing another one. But that's just my opinion. I certainly don't have an agenda one way or the other. Other than to keep Wikipedia balanced and within the guidelines.
To the comment that "no one has addressed your points". Again, frankly, I think that your points have been addressed. Your point (in a nut shell) is that there is nothing in the "extrajudicial punishment" article that would preclude it's application here. With a supporting "cite" that several parties have admonished the Gardaí for the tactics used. However, what is still missing is the leap from other people's accusations of "police brutality" and YOUR accusations of "extrajudicial punishment". It is this which makes it OR, and POV. And that's what we keep saying, and you keep ignoring.
Quite simply (for the dozen-th time) the re-definition of the use physical force by police, whether considered by some to be unreasonable or not (in the application crowd control, protest "management", breaking up sit-ins or whatever) from "physical force" to something equivalent to an unlawful or extrajudicial action is a POV. Not a fact. "Physical force" is the fact. The presumption of a reason behind it, or an alternative definition of it is OR and POV. Just leave it as it is. And let the facts speak to themselves. Instead of coming to your own conclusions, and then representing your opinion as fact. Guliolopez (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I contend that the Gardai are acting extrajudicially, for which I refer you to the quote from the superintendent. I contend that protesters are being punished physically for their lawbreaking, for which there is ample video evidence, i.e. it isn't necessary to throw people into ditches in order to remove them from a road. How anyone can contend with a straight face that the two put together is not extrajudicial punishment is beyond me. OR, or my opinions, don't even come into it.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd welcome your input at Talk:Extrajudicial punishment#Scope of this article.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of arrest following an action does not make something extrajudiciall. the simple fact is Gardai are authorised to use force to stop breaches of the peace and remove obstacles prior to arresting someone. If you believe they are acting against the law then make a complaint but please learn definitions of the words you use as Gardai acting in this way is not outside normal court proceedings. The second possible meaning doesnt apply as Gardai never act under court authority but under their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New section[edit]

Leaving aside the vexed questions of their legality, their proportionality, whether or not they could be defined as punishment etc., does anyone apart from DJ dispute that the Garda tactics at Bellanaboy could sometimes be described as violent?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea. Have you some evidence from a reliable source (not IndyMedia either, esp. not one you wrote!)? - Alison 23:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You've no idea whether or not you dispute it?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It would not be the correct use of the word as it means a very strong act (such as violantly sick) or intentionally injure (again you cant state the Garda intent). The correct term would be physical, forcfull or similar. (KC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Shell to Sea[edit]

Just going through my changes, as Lapsed Pacifist seemed to have a problem with my edit summary:

The use of physical (sometimes violent) force to remove protesters results from a decision to avoid arresting them (for either traffic or public order violations), so as to reduce coverage of the campaign.
changed to
No arrests were made as the Gardaí did not want to make "martyrs" of the protesters.
I changed this mostly due to weasel words - "violent", the arrest types, and implying that it's deliberate on the part of the Gardai to silence the protests. Physical force is used, yes, but nowhere does it say "violent", which appears to be pov on the part of the original editor. The source says they Gards didn't want to make martyrs of the protesters, not that they wanted to reduce coverage.
Scores of complaints of unprovoked assault, trespass, intimidation and property damage have been made by Shell to Sea campaigners to the new Garda Ombudsman, whose team spends days in Mayo interviewing people. This has led to Mayo now having the highest per capita rate of complaints against Gardaí in the State, despite having one of its lowest crime per capita rates.
changed to
Several complaints were made to the Garda Complaints board, relating to incidents occuring in late 2006.
Again, full of weasel words - there were 15 (maybe 16) complaints, hardly "scores"; the types of complaints were not mentioned anywhere in the sources; the source said the garda complaints board, not the ombudsman; no reference to the ombudsman's activities; there was no source about Mayo having the highest rate of complaints.
Garda security for Royal Dutch Shell's operations in Mayo costs the state over €25,000 a day,
Source doesn't mention any such figure.
In June 2008, new Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern turned down a request from the Garda Ombudsman Commission for a review of how Shell to Sea protests are policed. src
An Phoblacht is nowhere near a reliable source in this case, the article is very obviously biased.
Thanks! Fin© 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No arrests were made as the Gardaí did not want to make "martyrs" of the protesters.

I changed this mostly due to weasel words - "violent", the arrest types, and implying that it's deliberate on the part of the Gardai to silence the protests. Physical force is used, yes, but nowhere does it say "violent", which appears to be pov on the part of the original editor. The source says they Gards didn't want to make martyrs of the protesters, not that they wanted to reduce coverage.

There is ample video evidence of disproportionate and unnecessary violence used against Shell to Sea campaigners. In this instance, "physical force" is the weasel phrase. The meaning of "martyrdom" should be obvious: the superintendent sought to circumvent the judicial system by denying the protesters a due process which would have allowed them to defend the legality of their actions in a court.

Several complaints were made to the Garda Complaints board, relating to incidents occuring in late 2006.

Again, full of weasel words - there were 15 (maybe 16) complaints, hardly "scores"; the types of complaints were not mentioned anywhere in the sources; the source said the garda complaints board, not the ombudsman; no reference to the ombudsman's activities; there was no source about Mayo having the highest rate of complaints.

I don't know how many complaints were made to the Complaints Board; I know for sure that the number made to the Ombudsman Commission is fast approaching one hundred and would be higher if not for the widespread cynicism about that body's efficacy. I'll try to find sources.

Source doesn't mention any such figure.

I extrapolated from the overtime costs announced and the length of time the Gardaí began being deployed in numbers, since October 2006.

An Phoblacht is nowhere near a reliable source in this case, the article is very obviously biased.

The article reports a request made by Sinn Féin to the Minister for Justice to accede to the wishes of the Garda Ombudsman Commission and hold a review of how the Shell to Sea protests are policed. An Phoblacht is referenced by Google News, and in any event this not an opinion piece. You don't explain why you also deleted links to the Mayo News and Western People.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. Please source the ample evidence, from a verifiable, reliable source. "Physical force" is more neutral wording than "violent". Saying the meaning of "martydom" is obvious is your point of view.
  2. Find a WP:V, WP:RS source.
  3. WP:OR
  4. And Phoblacht being referenced by Google News does not mean that particular article is unbiased, or that the website itself is not. I removed any sources that did not back up the content.
Thanks! Fin© 11:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Physical force" is a weasel phrase not very fitting to describe the hospitalisations of old men by young men. You are blanking many sources other than An Phoblacht, and not giving any reason why. I contend it is irrelevant whether or not the article is unbiased, as it accurately describes a factual event, the refusal of the Justice Minister to grant a review sought by the Ombudsman Commission. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to significantly edit theShell to Sea Section here for the following reasons:-

  • Events are already described in policing the corrib gas protests and has WP:Undue weight here.
  • The other controversies or allegatons have mostly been subject to some form of enquiry/tribunal or invesigation, besides which the S2S controversy is controversial mainly because of the nature of the project itself, not because of Garda involvement.
  • References are unreliable in particular the Global Community Monitor report as referenced here [8] where it initially looks like an independent report from a human rights group. However on checking its home page it seems like more of a forum for these sort of campaigns [9] and indeed seems to be conducting its own campaign against shell [10]. It isn't reliable as its neither neutral or unbiased. Other Links are to indymedia, one of which is a transcript of a S2S press conference and the other is an extremely difficult to read scan of a review, posted on indymedia without context. Yet another is to the Irish Times website but requires subscription. GainLine 16:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Garda John McGovern Case[edit]

All the above is from a referenced source why cant it be put in?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hello. I expect that the reason this detail was removed is that it is too long given the actual seriousness/impact of the event. Please read Wikipedia is not news, WP:UNDUE, and the other discussions above which dealt with "summarising" any Garda controversy subjects. (These issues aside, your addition appears to be a verbatim "copy and paste" of the Irish Times article. Which is inappropriate under copyright terms). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I have already responded on his talk page. A short 2/3 sentences and references would be fine but several paragraphs is overkill on the article/talk pages. Djegan (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Incidentially if the above is "copy and paste" from the Irish Times and copyrighted then it will need to be removed. Djegan (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a single incident is worthy of inclusion. Something systemic, like the Morris tribunal, should be in the article, but not individual abuses of power. Thanks! Fin© 13:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we be including items that dont directly relate to a Garda performing his / her duties? This matter relates to a fight between two males. One of whom happens to have a Garda as a father. How is this a reflection on the organisation? If a bank employee were to be accused of a violent crime would it be included in the history of said bank? (KC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


The line "the government had lost confidence in him" about the illegal and party political sacking of a civil servant, Ned Garvey is mealy mouthed.

The then Fianna Fail government had lost office due to their own involvement in the Arms Crisis and this was clearly a case of revenge on someone they believed was too anti IRA/Republican or too "pro British" (in their eyes).

Fianna Fail have form for this, they fired Eoin O'Duffy and the head of the Special Branch in the 1930's, David Neligan.

I suggest "for reasons that remain unclear" if people feel that my contentions above can't be proved.

The controversy section should surely contain something about the infamous Blue Flu incident and related industrial relations issues. (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about changes[edit]

I have a number of issues about changes made to the Shell to Sea controversy section of this article since I last edited it, including:

  • The removal of a picture of a Shell to Sea campaigner being taken away by paramedics from the scene of a protest at Lennon's quarry after being beaten by Gardaí
  • The removal of all context behind the "martyrdom" excerpt from the Garda Review interview of Superintendent Joe Gannon. Currently his words are quoted without any attempt at explanation, and don't make much sense
  • The removal of all description of the inevitable limitations on Garda tactics forced on them by the "no arrest" policy
  • The removal of all reference to the scores of complaints made to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) concerning police tactics around the protest. Currently the only reference is to the (relatively small) number made to the old Garda Complaints Board, defunct since early 2007
  • The removal of all reference to the insane situation where the Garda district with the lowest crime rate in the state has the highest rate of complaints against Gardaí
  • The removal of all reference to the refusals of two consecutive Justice Ministers to countenance an investigation into said tactics as requested by the GSOC, seemingly because the article cited was to republican newspaper An Phoblacht. It was also reported by the Irish Times the month previously in a brief article. I'm sure An Phoblacht would not be an ideal reference point for an article discussing the pros and cons of a United Ireland; I don't understand how a reference in that paper to a Dail exchange could be so heavily slanted with republican bias that the basic facts of the exchange would be missed

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi LP. Can you provide diffs for these changes? Since as far back as October[11], (since you last engaged in edit warring with several editors) the only change that I can see occuring (from this list) is the unexplained image removal.[12] Besides this (as has been pointed out before) while we all respect your conscience in this area, there simply isn't room to cover all this in this article. (Per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT#NEWS, etc.) It should be dealt with in the relevant sub-article (following the relevant POV guidelines), and summarised and linked here. As is currently the case. Guliolopez (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gulio. Here's the diff:
The relevant changes are between lines 348 and 366. As you can see, there were a lot more changes than the picture removal.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As Gulio is mostly retired, is there anyone else willing to defend (rationally) the changes that have concerned me? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you bring them up at the mediation page, rather than holding a discussion here. Thanks! Fin© 12:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The mediation page doesn't see enough traffic to my liking. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to take the non-response to my question above as a no. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on creating a Regional Support Unit article[edit]

Should it be created? Need some opinion as I found some references pertaining to the RSU? Thanks. Ominae (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Crack on, think its something thats going to be increasingly important in the future GainLine 08:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, see you added a bit about RSU to article will that be it or are you planning on a new article? Creating RSU Was on my long finger of lists to do. GainLine 16:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments page as source[edit]

WP:SOURCES would hold that content should be "based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Apart entirely from being incredibly dubious for notability and (even if true) probably has a common use pool that likely stops at junior infants, the recent addition of an assertion that "people call them the Gardaí Sicíní" relies on a comments page from humour/satire site as a source! This is about as far away from a "reliable source" as possible. (If it was in the Register article, then maybe. But in the comments on an article(?)) Unless the assertion can be substantiated with a more appropriate source, the entry should be removed. Under either WP:VER or WP:NN. Guliolopez (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously not Irish and have not lived there. Or if you are/have you haven't kept your ears open, The pun is used often in everyday speech (by non-Garda members of all ages) partially as the reputation of the Garda in relation to efficiency is historically not good. Formerly the recruits were often poorly educated and unmotivated. They came predominantly from areas known as the "bogs" or rural areas and were regarded as somewhat unsophisticated. The term implies that they are fit only to I dare say that has changed. One of the reasons that you don't find many refs is that it is a well worn pun and those who would use it in everyday speech probably don't don't have a síneadh fada diacritic on their keyboard. In any event before you put a citation/ref thing in you should do your homework. Although the comment in The Register that's a fairly decent source as the users would be all grown up (if not mature) and the citation shows how the term is used in Irish English vernacular. Do you really think that the OED for instance is going to be able to avoid including terms simply because they have only been used on the interwebs or discussions on morning shows aimed at Gen Y on FM radio? I will revert your silly tagging unless I get some sort of coherent response. Thank you for your time, Albatross2147 (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I would very firmly point you to our policy on "commenting on the content not the editor". Your notes above that I am somehow ill-informed because I don't hear "Garda Sicíní" in everyday use is inappropriate. And frankly irrelevant. Also your assertion that it is "silly" to tag a unreliably sourced assertion as such is also inappropriate. And similarly against policy. (Had you spent two minutes looking you would see that clearly I am Irish, and - had you noted that I spend most of my time on the GA project - you would realise that the suggestion that I can't find the fada on my keyboard is laughable). Now, to your points on the actual content. The assertion that "Irish people know this to be true" is irrelevant. The WP:VER guidelines expect that ANYONE can verify a source. Regardless of their location. (So "it is common knowledge" is not a source). Besides this, as per my note, a source doesn't have to be the OED or encyclopedia Britannica or some other massively verified source. It CANNOT however be self-published. It simply can't. And so blogs, comments on blogs, forum posts and similar are therefore not acceptable. So, please find a better source for your claim before removing any "silly tags". Go raibh maith agat. Guliolopez (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a point that I've never heard the phrase ("Gardaí Sicíní") used, despite Albatross' assertion that it's "used often in everyday speech". Thanks! Fin© 09:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Nor have I. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Me neither GainLine 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Epaulettes/Shoulder numbers[edit]

I've added the epaulettes for each rank. I intend to add the one for student garda and garda reserve. The sergeant stripes are in the sewn-on style, instead of the correct metallic ones ordinarily used, but I intend to amend this once I can create it. Rubensni (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a valuable addition. However they seem a bit big. Any thoughts on possibly moving these to a section called "rank structure", which would remain a subset of "organisation". And putting in a table or list. As with the same section in Irish Army. Maybe something like the below? Guliolopez (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 15px Commissioner
  • 15px Deputy/Assistant Commissioner
  • 15px Chief Superintendent
  • 15px Superintendent
  • 15px Inspector
  • Garda 06.png Sergeant
  • Garda 07.png Garda
Yes, it's a bit oversized and cluttered. To deal with this I've added a template (similar to the Metropolitan Police page Metropolitan_Police_Service#Police_ranks and NYPD page - along shirt colours in the same style - Nypd#Ranks_of_the_NYPD). The template runs horizontal and shows the formal rank structure. I've also added the insignia for the reserve and students. Rubensni (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


The "Vehicles" section is yet again threatening to totally take over the article. Listing a few of the main vehicles in the body text/prose would seem to be enough to meet most readers needs. If necessary the more exhaustative "List of vehicles used by An Garda Síochána" could be carved out as a separate article. Unless there are objections or alternative suggestions I will summarise this section (again). Guliolopez (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Seeing as there has be no objection or alternate suggestion to addressing this issue, I'm going to go ahead and "split" the "List of vehicles used by An Garda Síochána" into it's own article. (As noted, this [uncited] 50 point list if of limited relevance to the topic and has undue impact/weight over other content.) Guliolopez (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Name of the force[edit]

No, not the name of the Wikipedia article; I think Garda Síochána is correct. But what is the name of the force? It seems to me that the legal position is section 5(2) of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925, which states in part:

The amalgamated force shall be called and known as the Gárda Síochána

Previously, Section 2(1) of the Gárda Síochána (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 said [emphasis in original]:

It shall be lawful for the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann to raise, train, equip, pay and maintain in Saorstát Eireann a force of police to be called and known as "The Gárda Síochána."

And Section 1(1) of The Garda Síochána Act, 1924 said:

It shall be lawful for the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann to continue to raise, train, equip, pay and maintain in Saorstát Eireann the force of police called the Gárda Síochána

Some points:

  • Of course the á in Gárda doesn't conform to modern spelling conventions, but the section as it stands has not been repealed since. Perusing the Irish Statute Book, it looks like the Garda Síochána (Pensions) Act, 1947 was the first to use Garda (other than in titles, where uppercase conventions might confuse things) rather than Gárda. Presumably this "misspelling" does not invalidate the Act.
  • Garda Síochána na hÉireann appears on the insignia but is neither the official or the usual name, so I think it should not be described as such or be the first name given in the lede.
  • An Garda strikes me as cúpla focal-ism (ditto An Taoiseach, if anyone cares what I think); but An Garda Síochána is what their English-language website uses
    • Even if it states the Civic Guard was "renamed the Garda Síochána na hÉireann on 8 August 1923"

jnestorius(talk) 21:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Article re-structure[edit]

I am restructuring the article due to it being poorly wrote (e.g Medals being a sub section under vehicles used by the force) and a lot of material that is not notable or referenced adequately. Also I moved Reserve out of terminology.Tomh903 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. What is it specifically that you think is "poorly wrote"?

I would point out that, before you started the re-structure, the Vehicles and Reserve sections were not inappropriately placed. In fact, it was the re-structuring that moved these sections into inappropriate positions.

When you say that you determined to remove "a lot of material that is not notable", can you please explain what content in particular you mean? Bluntly, I think that a lot of the stuff you have removed (especially around terminology) is actually quite relevant. I would like to understand the rationale. As I'm sure would other editors.

When you say you have removed stuff that is not "referenced adequately", while you may be right, can you be more specific?

Finally, as per my note on your talk page, if you had added a few notes here before undertaking your complete revamp (or perhaps added more than a few scant edit-sums in support of that complete rewrite), then we probably wouldn't need a big debate about it... Guliolopez (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Complete rewrite[edit]

Hi. As per my note on the editors talk page, an editor seems to have decided that this article needs a complete rewrite. But hasn't really explained here (or anywhere that I can find save for a few limited edit-sums) why these changes are being made, and what problems are being solved. For example, the "terminology" section has been completely excised, with a note that it is "covered in the lead". However, the article now uses the term "guard" without explaining what it means. Also there is now a list of Gardaí who were killed in the line of duty very early in the article. While this is valuable content, I do not think that (a) it should be given prominence over other content, or (b) included in the principal article (rather than - say - in a sub-article). I strongly encourage some discussion on this wholescale revamp, removal, reworking of the article. Guliolopez (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If you take a look at a article such as Metropolitan Police Service you will see that they have a full list of officers killed even though they are a far larger police force. In terms of certain sections being given prominence over others, I am structuring the layout like the NYPD article.Tomh903 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I was on-line earlier and I saw the moving of terminology down the article- I came back this evening and its gone.
As per WP:LEDE the lead is an outlining of the main points, not the giving of exact information- the lead doesnt even have to be cited aslong as its sourced in the article body.
But my biggest issue is the total removing of the terminology section- its a non-English name and has informal English short names and longer Irish ones. Its an assit to the article to have a section explaining what it means how its used everyday. The NYPD and Metropolitan police dont have non-English names and the termimology section isnt relevant to those articles Murry1975 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tomh903. Thanks for those two explanations:
  • RE: NYPD. I understand (now). However, I am not sure why you decided that the NYPD article structure was "better" than the previous one here. (The NYPD article wasn't, for example, identified under the WP:GA guidelines as being especially noteworthy). Also, as Murry1975 points out, the previous structure covered a number of topic nuances that are not required in the NYPD article. Did you remove the remove the Terminology section simply because the NYPD article didn't have one? If so, that doesn't seem reasonable to me.
  • RE: London/Deaths. OK. I understand. Now. I see the rationale. But would note that the list is at the very end of the Metropolitan Police Service article. Not the top.
  • RE: Removing content that wasn't "referenced adequately". As per my note above, please can you elaborate?
  • RE: Removing content that wasn't "notable". As per above, please can you elaborate?
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no terminology in Polizia di Stato (Italian Police) or the Police nationale (French police) so why have one for Irish? You can put it back in but I don't think its necessary or notable enough for a whole section.Tomh903 (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
An example of a section not being notable enough is the Diplomatic Protection Unit that is actually a subdivision of another unit that is covered earlier and that represents a group of less than 40 officers in 13,300 force.Tomh903 (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Why for the Irish one? Because both the Irish names and the English derived shortened names are used commonly, no one in Italy says "the police" one minute and "La polizia" the next, Italy doesnt have English and Italian as its offical languages and its own slang form of Engish so a terminology section would be as appropriate as a space program section. If you dont think its necessary discuss it- its been there for a long while. Murry1975 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I have created a whole new article for misconduct involving the force so could I significantly reduce the "Controversy and allegations involving the force" section with a main article link to An Garda Síochána corruption and misconduct?.
You can put terminology back in if you want Murry but it needs to be better referenced I think.Tomh903 (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. And thanks. To the points:
  • RE: Terminology: As Murry1975 points out, there is no comparable section in those articles because the linguistic concerns are not the same. We are using Irish words "untranslated" in an English context (both in the article and in real life). Something that isn't an issue in the other articles - or those countries. (Though I would note that the French article is peppered with translations and explanations from the original French). In any event, it has been the been the understanding of the community (for some time) that this article required such a section. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion about putting it back in. I will review that when you are "done" with your other revisions.
  • RE: Lead/ENGVAR: Do you have any comment on Murry1975's point about the WP:LEDE guidelines? Or mine on the WP:ENGVAR guidelines? If not, when you are satisfied that the other issues have been addressed, I will take a look at addressing these two issues.
  • RE: Notability/Cites: Any further comment on the other content that you removed? Any stuff in particular that you think was especially egregious? That you feel wasn't salvageable on either count? Other than the Diplomatic Protection content? If not, when you are done, I may take a look and see if there is a place for any of the removed stuff within this new structure. (Only if properly sourced and cited of course)
  • RE: List: Unless you have any big objection, I still think this should be moved lower-down.
  • RE: Done: Are you done? Have you completed your restructure? Or are there other issues you feel need addressing? I ask because I am happy to work within this new "structure", but wouldn't like to cause any issues or edit conflicts by cutting-across your efforts.
  • RE: Controversy: This section has been hotly discussed for some years. I would seriously recommend you review the archive on this page before proceeding with your proposal in that regard. I already MASSIVELY summarised that content some time ago. Completely excising it from the article wasn't considered appropriate at the time. If you are proposing that now, I suggest you open a specific thread on that topic.
Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I will move the list down. In regards to the Controversy section, I only want to redirect to another article so it does not continue to unbalance this article. I merely copied and pasted the information to a new page so its not like I am taking out bits I disagree with. It is the exact same content on a different page. Also, does the Garda band really need a whole section? I would like to remove that due to no sources and I can not see why that needs a whole section.Tomh903 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for moving the list. Much appreciated. As regards the Controversy section, as they say, "you should have seen it before". It has been dramatically summarised in the past. But, as per my note above, even this required significant discussion before consensus was agreed. So, if you feel strongly, I would recommend that you open a separate discussion. Please do not do anything unilaterally with that section. Lest you want the wrath of other editors to descend upon thee. In fact, I would strongly recommend that you change your existing for to redirect "back" from the "new" article - to this one. Before it becomes a unwieldy fork. (Also, just FYI, if there is consensus to move to a sub-article, then your choice of title is completely inappropriate. I can see again that you are borrowing from the NYPD article, but the title itself is barbed and implies that misconduct has been proven and confirmed. Which isn't the case for much of the content you have moved.) Finally, on the Garda Band question: I asked the same question myself some years ago. I also question whether it requires its own section. However there has never been strong consensus to excise it. So I would recommend that - at most - you summarise and find an appropriate section for it. Because I don't believe there is CON for removing it entirely. Guliolopez (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any other way for stopping the "Controversy and allegations involving the force" section unbalancing the article other than redirecting it to a dedicated page. I have gone on to other police forces articles and none of them have as much space taken up by Controversy sections. We can't reduce it obviously because people will object so moving the exact same information onto a redirected page is the fairest and most neutral option.Tomh903 (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor "restructuring the article due to it being poorly wrote"[edit]

I strongly feel that, before embarking on large-scale "restructuring" of this relatively large article, which is at B-class, an editor should at least seek endorsement from the Wikipedia community, ie, consensus. With this in mind, I am being bold and reverting the recent edits. Hohenloh + 19:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Search & Rescue[edit]

AGS is responsible for search and rescue, and task mountain rescue, civil defense and the defense forces to such tasking as 'aids to the civil power'. However I have not been able to find any proper sources for this online apart from the media. Anybody with greater familiarity with the Gardaí got anything? Even if sources are found, do the community think it would be worth including in the article? I looked at one or two UK police forces who have the same responsibilities and they don't mention it. Managedperceptions (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Informality and OR[edit]

The article currently says: It is known, in decreasing order of formality,[citation needed] as An Garda Síochána; the Garda Síochána; the Garda; the Gardaí (plural); the Guards[citation needed].

The 'citation needed' request at the end has been there since 2012 and has been quite sensibly ignored, presumably because the only part of the sentence that is (or at least currently appears to be) genuinely OR (Original Research) is the 'decreasing order of formality' claim. So I have now added a [citation needed] beside it. The rest of the sentence is not OR because it's the self-evident truth, not a controversial statement requiring a supporting citation. Meanwhile, there is a clear distinction between the other terms and 'the Guards'. The later is entirely informal, and will in practice not normally be heard in formal settings such as RTE News reports (except when quoting somebody's use of the term), whereas all the other terms are basically formal and do get heard in such formal settings. My attempt to mention this clear and important distinction between 4 formal terms and one informal term got immediately reverted as alleged OR (as far as I'm concerned it was not OR, as it was the self-evident truth, but in any case the RTE bit wouldn't be needed in practice without the problems that seem ultimately created by the 'decreasing order of formality' claim). The reverter was seemingly in such a hurry to get rid of the alleged OR (instead of first requesting a citation, as normally recommended in cases of alleged OR), and while leaving the actual OR, that he or she initially forgot to give an explanation for his or her revert, and Acting Garda Commissioner Noirin O'Sullivan initially got herself deleted as well. Fortunately he or she eventually noticed and corrected this, but left part of my change to give 'and most informally the Guards', so I removed 'and most informally' to leave the article as it was originally, with the explanation "removing my 'and, most informally', as now redundant once the self-evident truth about RTE News is deemed OR (we're already told they're in decreasing order of informality, which, incidentally, really is OR),+ it would also need a comma". There was no space to spell out that the comma would be needed after 'most informally'. But in any case it's redundant unless one gets rid of the 'decreasing order of formality' claim. (which I'm going to do shortly).

Meanwhile we are currently left with 2 [citations needed] that will probably continue to be ignored, plus a highly questionable and unsupported claim about decreasing order of formality, plus no mention of the basic distinction between 4 formal terms and one informal term. And attempts to fix this situation, which has seemingly existed in one form or another since at least 2012, seemingly get promptly reverted.

So I felt that before I try a proper fix, I should first try to explain the problem here, in the hope that would-be reverters will at least consider my arguments before reverting.

I think the sentence should simply read: It is variously known as An Garda Síochána; the Garda Síochána; the Garda; the Gardaí (plural); and, informally, the Guards.

As far as I can see that fixes the problems I have mentioned above. Quite likely somebody can find some Wiki rule as an excuse to revert, but my justification for making the above change rests on the above arguments, plus WP:IAR, one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia (Ignore All Rules if they prevent you from improving the encyclopedia). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The CN tag is for "gaurds" see edit history. Your edits of as its not used by RTE is OR, and to deny that its OR ("as now redundant once the self-evident truth about RTE News is deemed OR") is pure misguiding. And then to throw over 3600 bytes on a talkpage because your OR got reverted? Why? Why not do what the tag needs instead? Murry1975 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

First, your assertion (here and in your revert description) that I am 'throwing the toys out of the pram', and that I wrote 3800 words solely because I was annoyed that my alleged OR had been reverted, implies that I don't believe what I wrote, and as such is a violation of WP:AGF. I am a fallible human being like everybody else, so I may be mistaken, but I genuinely believed every word I wrote, and, per WP:AGF, you are not entitled to imply that I didn't - so if you persist I will presumably have to report you. However, with the benefit of hindsight, I now think it was perhaps a mistake on my part to mention some things (such as your initial deletion of Noirin O'Sullivan, my unnecessary defence of my RTE edit as I don't intend to persist with that particular attempted change, and so on), and I apologize if any of these mentions caused you any unnecessary distress, confusion, or whatever..

Second, your revert has ensured that the problems I mentioned above remain unfixed, and your implicit view that they are not genuine problems but merely 'throwing toys out of the pram', etc, will, if persisted in, ensure that they will remain unfixed, which as far as I'm concerned disimproves the encyclopedia, though we may end up having to agree to differ on whether or not it does.

In case you're not too clear what problems I'm talking about, I summarized those problems in my last post as: Meanwhile we are currently left with 2 [citations needed] that will probably continue to be ignored, plus a highly questionable and unsupported claim about decreasing order of formality, plus no mention of the basic distinction between 4 formal terms and one informal term. And attempts to fix this situation, which has seemingly existed in one form or another since at least 2012, seemingly get promptly reverted.

We arguably now have a partial solution for the 'formal and informal' bit, but it is very far from the ideal one, involving redundant wording (the last item is necessarily the most informal if they are in descending order of formality, which anyway is OR), and no clear indication that the others are all fairly formal. And the other problems remain.

Third, the CN now appears to an ordinary reader such as me to relate to the entire sentence, or to be capable of so relating. At the time it was created it was at the end of a paragraph, so it could also have related to the entire paragraph. The edit history says nothing about it referring to 'the guards' rather than the entire sentence or paragraph. The editor, Kwekubu, a person from Ghana now living in Ireland according to his user page, simply writes 'Soource for this?' (a bot later added a date to the CN). He has made no further edits to the article nor said anything on its Talk page. The sentence and paragraph have changed considerably since he made the request (although it did already have 'in descending order of formality'), so it is possible that what he wanted cited is no longer there, and it is also possible that he no longer remembers what he wanted cited. But I'll be asking him anyway. The Edit history is as follows

13:53, 21 February 2012‎ Kwekubo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (54,175 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Terminology: source for this?) (undo | thank)

The paragraph at the time was: The full official title of the force is rarely used in speech. How it is referred to depends on the register of the speaker. It is known, in decreasing order of formality, as An Garda Síochána (An pronounced [ən]); the Garda Síochána; the Garda (in the preceding names, Garda "guard" is a collective noun, like police); the Gardaí (Irish pronunciation: [ˈɡaːɾˠd̪ˠiː] [GAR-DEE]; "guards", plural); or the Guards.Empty citation (help)

However, assuming for the sake of argument that you are right that it only refers to 'the Guards', then I am genuinely puzzled as to what it's doing there. Citations are only needed for controversial statements. We do not have to provide citations for 'grass is green' and millions of similar statements of the self-evident truth. And, to the best of my knowledge, it should be self-evident truth to almost anybody who has lived in Ireland for any length of time (as I have for nearly 50 of my 60 years) that ordinary Irish people (including me, among millions of others) frequently refer to the Gardai as 'the Guards'. So I would be both a bit surprised to learn that this is what the CN is about, and unsurprised that nobody has realized that they were being asked to look for citations in support of the fact that Irish people say 'the Guards', for the same reason that I'd be surprised to be asked to look for citations to support 'grass is green'.

So are you in fact saying that the only thing wrong with that sentence is the lack of a citation for Irish people saying 'the guards', and are you asking me to go looking for such a citation? As far as I'm concerned there is plenty wrong with that sentence, as spelt out in my 3800 words, but the lack of such a citation is not one of them.

Are you also saying that we should delete 'the guards', as nobody has produced such a citation since 2012 (which is what is supposed to happen with justified CNs after such a length of time - of course, I don't accept that such a CN is justified in relation to 'the guards', though I think it's fully justified in relation to 'in descending order of formality')? Of course if it does only refer to the guards, then it's an unjustified CN and should be deleted. I had assumed it really referred to 'in descending order of formality', which, even without all the additional justification from WP:IAR, would fully justify deleting 'in descending order of formality' after such a length of time (as I tried to do, before getting reverted by you for allegedly 'throwing the toys out of the pram') . Tlhslobus (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As per above request, I've now added an RS citation for The Guards, even though it may not have been what was being asked for two years ago, and is totally unnecessary (grass must be green, because an academic in Chicago says so), conforms to a standard that would require wiping out something like 90% or more of both this article and of the rest of Wikipedia if it were to be consistently enforced, is probably the sort of infuriating and time-wasting nonsense that causes editors to quit Wikipedia in droves, and quite likely is also the sort of nonsense that brings Wikipedia into disrepute among the general public. It is also not one of the things that require citations under template GATable/item|2b|?|, ("it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines"), though no doubt other rules can be found to support the requirement (to which I replied with WP:IAR, one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, but got reverted anyway). But I guess all that's just the nature of Wikipedia.

Meanwhile it does at least allow me to have a clear distinction between 'the guards' and the other terms, to get rid of the redundant duplication of 'informal', and to get rid of one CN (=[citation needed]) that has for more than two years being damaging the article (and encyclopedia, as per WP:IAR), by causing readers unfamiliar with Ireland to have to doubt everything in that sentence without knowing that everything in it is utterly uncontroversial, except the 'decreasing order of formality'.

I would like to now simply remove that 'decreasing order of formality' on the basis of [[WP:IAR}}, plus the fact that it has found no supporting citation despite having a CN request for 27 months. But if I did I might again be reverted on the questionable basis that the CN did not clearly refer to it, and arguably referred to something else. So I now plan to leave it there with a CN unambiguously against it for perhaps 3 months, or until somebody else deletes it or says it's OK for me to delete it. The downside is that I may forget to delete it in 3 months time. But again I guess all that's just the nature of Wikipedia. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Amazing that a single citation request two years ago could generate such an amount of text. For posterity, my edit originally referred to the whole "decreasing order of formality" claim, not just the phrase "the Guards". --Kwekubo (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful clarification, Kwekubo. Maybe your confirmation that "decreasing order of formality" has in effect had a CN against it for 27 months may now allow me to delete it without getting reverted.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. And, by the way, sorry about the 'wall of text'. But it wasn't really caused by your citation request, but by a related edit dispute 27 months later. And such disputes frequently result in even longer walls of text, perhaps because disputes are often even harder to resolve if people don't spell out their position sufficiently clearly and in adequate detail (which often requires a wall of text or two). Some have even claimed that concision has been a contributory factor in causing real wars, such as the Ems Telegram in 1870, and the Austrian ambassador's concise reply to Serbia ("Unacceptable!") in 1914 during the lead-up to World War One. Noam Chomsky also claims that demands for concision are a weapon in the arsenal of supporters of the status quo, and that concision is a luxury not readily available to those trying to make changes (as I was here). But let's not generate another wall of text about all that :) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong doing (again again)[edit]

I have shorted both sections relating to Barr and Morris and Smithwicks tribunals. They already have their own pages which can be read in detail if desired. The parts I have left are sufficient for a reader to understand what happened and the resulting decisions. There also appeared to be minor vandalism in some sections with "From behind" added for no reason and how much a retired Gardas pension was worth! I have left the remaining 3 under "Mishandling of cases and complaints" as they were short enough.

I have also removed reference to Gardai ignoring gay bashing, the source is no longer available and google searches suggested it was simple a blogger expressing an opinion without fact.I have left the turban issue but am unsure of the reason for its inclusion. Was it really controversial or an allegation of wrongdoing?

In relation to abuse of power, a small third paragraph that merely mirrored and linked to indymedia has been removed. It proves nor adds to the section however Mayday 2004 I would suggest deserves a mention, I have made a small start.

Similarly, I have removed unproven allegations from other parties in full, if we go down that road we may as well include every complaint ever made.

The Corrib section includes a lot of conjecture and information not relevant. How much Corrib costs and how much Shell paid is included for what reason?Also, do Gardai call the road "The golden mile"? Proof please? In fact, the two links backing up this part is blank and doesnt exist. So removed I think for the same reason as above, we cant possible include every unproven complaint ever made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, this section makes up nearly half the entire page with the GSOC area alone matching the entire section on acts of bravery. If complaints and allegations are included, shouldnt evidence of good?

Hi anon. As you note, there has been much discussion over the years about how best to deal with this topic - with consideration to the project's guidelines relating to balance, POV and undue weight. As you note, it wouldn't be appropriate to "include every complaint ever made", but we also need to be careful about using "slippery slope" type arguments to manage content of this type. (As it happens, this section is pretty heavily managed, and has been very aggressively summarised from previous incarnations. So I'm not sure a "slippery slope" type argument is really appropriate). Personally, I'm inclined to agree (as I've argued for some years), that the bulk of these areas should be covered in the relevant sub-articles. And covered in summary in this article. Lengthy "coverage" of these topics at an article at this level causes issues wrt WP:UNDUE guidelines. However, this doesn't give licence to swing excessively in the other direction either - certainly not to the extent of "blanking" larger sections entirely. For that reason (and as it was frankly very hotly discussed at the time), I've restored a summarised version of the "Corrib" section. (You seemed to indicate that you removed this section because some cites were now missing/moved. I've added webarchive links to address any issues in that area.) Happy to have a further discussion about summarisation if needed. Let's talk it through here however, as project mores would suggest, before doing large scale "culling". (Looking forward to it) Guliolopez (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I accept that large deleting should be avoided but at present we now once again have an article that seems to simple paint a picture of corruption. I again repeat, each allegation has a link to its own section, arent we just duplicating the allegations now? Is this an article about the police force or its failings? No other police forces entry is so heavy with allegations. The NYPD and London MET to name just two, have a far more proven and lengthy history of corruption yet barely a whisper on their pages.
Also, the Corrib article didnt contain old links, it contains only one link to Indymedia. Indymedia has already been stated as an unreliable option and was largely written by one person (Who it would seem insists on its inclusion here). I would once again ask for proof that Gardai refer to that section of road as "The Golden mile". Theres no proof and its inclusion just points towards Wikipedia as being an unreliable database of hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, I don't disagree that the section could be improved. In general I would wonder wonder however if this is the best time to be doing it (given the recency of the Guerin Report, Smithwick Tribunal and other elements this section). That aside however, I definitely don't think that we should be culling items for "precedence", "verifiability" or "reliable sources" issues. Specifically:
  • You mention precedence for this type of section in equivalent UK or US articles. I would note that the Law enforcement in the United Kingdom article has an expansive equivalent section, and there are various articles covering the topic for the US. Granted these are not exactly equivalent articles, but there is plenty of precedent for including at least some content in these types of articles.
  • You mention the reliability of the IndyMedia source. The IndyMedia source is used purely to support a comment that an incident was first reported on IndyMedia - before then being substantially "picked up" by other more mainstream outlets. There are plenty of more main stream reports on this, so I don't think there's a strong argument here to remove on that basis.
  • You also mention the verifiability of the Corrib "overtime" attribution. This claim is made directly in the linked Irish Times article. If you think it should be reworded from "alleged" to "alleged in an Irish Times article", then that would be OK with me. But I'm not sure there's a case for removing entirely on a WP:VER basis.
In any event, while I don't think there is a case for wholescale culling on a precedence, WP:RS or WP:VER basis, there possibly is an argument to be made (or discussion to be had) for addressing some of the WP:CFORK or WP:UNDUE issues. In addressing those issues, I would recommend that, instead of entirely removing content (to shorten the section), that we look at places where a topic/incident is covered in perhaps three or four sentences. And, where it is dealt-with elsewhere, summarize to one or two sentences instead. This is how this was handled originally - when originally substantially scaled-back the content from a previous version. Happy to hear your thoughts or specific suggestions on where we might do this. Guliolopez (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the Corrib sections overtime part however I still fail to see why its mentioned at all, Gardai claim overtime just like most workers and so far none of the complaints have been upheld, its not really relevent in my opinion. In the Mayday section however your links are not mentioned, only one which is number 40 and that points to an Indymedia article. The article in question is labelled "Garda goes beserk". I would suggest thats not backed up by the media or court records where the Gardai in your link were actually found not guilty. As the article states, only one Garda was found guilty and that was for minor assault. I would suggest removing the Indymedia link and replacing it with one or both of yours.

Notwithstanding those points, I dont believe the UK law enforcement section has as much failings in it. Under 'issues' it talks about pay and other complaints raised by the police, not against the police. Of course it could be argued that AGS is just that bad but I dont think thats the case rather people have made it their mission to mention every possible grievance.

A smaller section which mentions the complaints and links to them should be adequate in my opinion but I leave it in your hands as I notice that most of the comments or sections I felt required attention have either been edited or altered by either yourself or another editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Garda Síochána. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked Guliolopez (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Garda Síochána. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Garda Síochána. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Garda Síochána. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garda Síochána. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)